Written answers

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Department of Health and Children

Medical Inquiries

10:00 pm

Photo of Pat RabbittePat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 49: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the progress she has made in the establishment of an inquiry into the alleged abuse carried out by a doctor (details supplied) in the north east; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [45557/09]

Photo of Mary HarneyMary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I met with the support group, Dignity 4 Patients, on 29 October 2009 to inform them of my decision, in consultation with the Cabinet and the Attorney General, to establish an independent review to examine whether further investigation into the case of Mr. Michael Shine would be of public benefit. I also made a commitment to the group to establishing a full statutory investigation should this review so recommend it.

The Terms of Reference for this review, which I announced on 29 October 2009, are as follows: To examine and recommend to the Minister for Health and Children:-

(a) Whether a further investigation into the procedures and practices operating at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital Drogheda during the period 1964 to 1995 to protect patients from sexual abuse while undergoing treatment or care at the hospital and to deal with allegations of sexual abuse against Mr Michael Shine, would be likely to provide additional information or insights which would be of significant public benefit in helping to improve present best practice guidelines and policies (including the Children First Guidelines), which apply to the treatment of patients in hospital for the purpose of protecting such patients from being sexually abused.

(b) The examination and recommendation should have regard to:-

1. The report of the Independent Review Group (1996);

2. Current guidelines and policy concerning the treatment of patients in hospital, including the Children First Guidelines and relevant rules of professional conduct and medical ethics;

3. The views of groups or individuals representing complainants including the group Dignity 4 Patients;

4. The need to avoid prejudicing ongoing civil or criminal proceedings or investigations.

I am satisfied that these terms of reference allow the review to give support groups, including Dignity 4 Patients, and of course all concerned groups and individuals, an opportunity to engage with the process, present their views, be heard in full and have those views taken into account in the outcome of the review.

I hope to be in a position to confirm who will be the independent person undertaking the review very shortly.

Comments

Peter O'Connor
Posted on 20 Dec 2009 3:16 pm (Report this comment)

Fine as it goes but that was October and now we're in the latter end of December and NOTHING has happened. As an answer it's factually correct if a little (!!) slow on results.
What concerns me is that Ms Hearney came along to the meeting with pre-judged opinions and pre-formulated responses. The Dignity 4 Patients have as yet had NO input nor any offers of help with their funding other than (only very recently) getting office furniture from the Lotto funds.
I realise that getting a retired high court judge that is not tainted with contact with Shine may well be a problem but I cant see why it it taking so long. Nor why the D 4 P are left waiting on the wings with no news forthcoming form the Minister since end October.

Log in or join to post a public comment.