James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has outlined what symphysiotomy is and the differences between it and pubiotomy where a saw is used to cut through bone. One case was identified and can be shown to have occurred. Symphysiotomy involves cutting through the cartilage that joins the two bones and was a recognised procedure in the 1940s and 1950s. By the 1960s caesarean section had become a safer alternative. It is very upsetting to think the use of symphysiotomy was continued when there were safer alternatives which would not have led to many of the lifelong disabilities from which many of the women concerned - citizens - suffered. There is no question but that they did suffer, from urinary incontinence, pain while walking, bowel function disorder and their ability to undertake day-to-day duties and look after their families. Sometimes it led to marital disharmony and family break-up.

I am pleased that 399 women availed of the scheme. There was advice that they take the legal route and, as Minister at the time, I was concerned that many of them would find it difficult to find documentary evidence to present. I was concerned that they would find that notes had gone missing and that the clinicians who had carried out the procedure were no longer alive and that they would spend the last years of their lives building up legal bills without having a resolution. The scheme was developed to avoid this and ensure speedy compensation for those who had suffered throughout their lives and that they would not have to endure further worry and anxiety. One lady, whom I know but whose name I will not mention, openly told us that she had an open and shut case. Of all the times the operation could have been performed, it is incredible that it was performed after a baby had been born, but that was what happened and she and her legal team believed they had a clear case. The decision was appealed, however, and she woke up one night and realised she might lose her house. Thereafter she became a great supporter of the scheme.

There was a lot of misinformation. It was stated a person who did not like the award under the scheme had already waived her legal rights, but that was not he case. The legal route was always available to those who felt it was preferable. As the Minister said, a number of legal cases were taken and failed. No scheme is perfect, but I thank Professor Oonagh Walsh and Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy for their work on it, as well as the patient folk who represented the women involved and the women themselves, many of whom I met. It is difficult for them to have closure, but I hope the scheme has brought some closure for them. I know that there is still criticism of it and that no amount of compensation can bring back the years in which they might otherwise have enjoyed full health, but I hope it vindicates them and makes them feel the State recognises that a wrong was done.

There is a time when a procedure is all that is available and one might call the removal of a leg "barbaric", but if it is the only surgical option, people understand it has to be done. The situation in this instance was different. The world had moved on, meaning that there were much safer ways of dealing with the issue, but certain clinicians, perhaps for religious reasons as other Senators have suggested, proceeded with this procedure rather than safer, more modern procedures. In my view, it was professional negligence, but I am glad that the Government developed the scheme and very proud to have been associated with it. I hope we have brought some sense of closure and recompense to console those who suffered in their later years.