Results 14,261-14,280 of 26,610 for speaker:David Cullinane
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Gleeson is saying to this committee that he was informing the State Claims Agency that, in his view at that time, his assumption was that all women would have been informed, primarily through their clinicians. That was essentially Mr. Gleeson's view at that time. Is that correct?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: No.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Yes. Mr. Gleeson is saying that, at that time in 2018 when he was part of this conference call, he was very clear to the State Claims Agency that one way or another, but mainly through their clinicians, all women had been informed. Mr. Gleeson would have had no concern that women were not being informed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I accept that. It was only through their clinicians. We are clear that all women would have been informed through the clinicians. Mr. Gleeson would have had no concern that women were not informed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: That does not stack up at all. Who wrote the memo that was given to clinicians?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: The memo that was given to clinicians to inform them as to how they should deal with informing the women. Who wrote that memo?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Gleeson was one of them.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Bear with me. Mr. Gleeson is telling this committee that he was making an assumption on the basis that clinicians would have informed women. I am saying that is not tenable because, in 2016, Mr. Gleeson wrote the memo or was part of writing a memo that gave discretion to clinicians and if the woman had passed on, the next of kin would not be informed and it would simply be noted on her...
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Gleeson was not.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Mr. Gleeson was not consistent with the guidelines.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: This a memo that was given to the Committee of Public Accounts on 25 May 2018.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: It is PA 32 1891. It is the context of the guidelines the HSE would have to comply with with regard to full disclosure. It says only in exceptional circumstances based on the clinical interest of a service user, it is likely that the service user will not benefit from open disclosure, and it goes on to give reasons. What Mr. Gleeson had in the circular that was given to clinicians was...
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: With respect, that was not put in the memo or circulars to consultants.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: No. What Mr. Gleeson said in his opening statement today was "we would have believed that the clinician would have communicated with the women as appropriate". The words "as appropriate" are important in this context. If we go back to the letter that we got from Mr. Connaghan, which clarifies, after the meeting that took place between the officials: "Mr Gleeson's understanding was...
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: -----it is Mr. Breen's version of it and the integrity of his organisation that is also on the line, because he is telling us, from this letter, that it has been clarified because Mr. Gleeson assumed the women had been informed by their treating physicians. In his opening statement, he says "as appropriate". That is a very healthy caveat that is not in that letter.
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: I have two final questions. Does Mr. Gleeson believe that his position is tenable as programme manager for CervicalCheck?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Does Mr. Gleeson believe the 209 women and the women who appeared before this committee, to whom we gave time and commitments that we would ask hard questions, would have confidence in Mr. Gleeson as programme manager?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Sorry?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: My question, while I will not give my personal opinion because I can give that outside this chamber, is if Mr. Gleeson believes his position is tenable as programme manager for CervicalCheck. It is either a yes or a no. He either believes his position is tenable or not. Does he believe his position is tenable?
- Public Accounts Committee: Implications of CervicalCheck Revelations (Resumed) (14 Jun 2018)
David Cullinane: Does Mr. Connaghan believe that Mr. Gleeson's position is tenable?