Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 159: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the reason that some 35 women were not included under the terms of the Lourdes hospital redress scheme; her plans to acknowledge their pain and suffering and the steps she will take to provide compensation to each of the women concerned or their survivors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42323/10]

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 160: To ask the Minister for Health and Children if she will establish a supplementary redress scheme for those women who, by virtue of their date of birth, were excluded from access to the Lourdes hospital redress scheme and whose cases are well established, medically verifiable and acknowledged by patient focus; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42324/10]

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 161: To ask the Minister for Health and Children when she last met with the victims of Michael Neary and or their representatives; if the issue of the excluded women under the terms of the Lourdes hospital redress scheme was discussed; if she made any specific commitments to those present; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42325/10]

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 162: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the measures she is contemplating to fairly and justly meet the case and needs of those women whose suffering at the hands of the former obstetrician/gynaecologist Michael Neary has yet to be officially recognised and appropriately responded to; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42326/10]

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 163: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the advice she has received that led her to decide that women who had reached their fortieth birthday and who were victims of Michael Neary in the Lourdes hospital in Drogheda were not to be included under the terms of the redress scheme [42327/10]

Mary Wallace (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 164: To ask the Minister for Health and Children if she will meet again with a representative group of those women who have not been included with other victims of Michael Neary in accessing the State established Lourdes hospital redress scheme and if she will meet with them in advance of Christmas [42328/10]

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

I propose to take Question Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 183, 184 and 185 together. The Lourdes Hospital Redress Scheme was established following an Inquiry into peripartum hysterectomy at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda chaired by Judge Maureen Harding Clark S.C.

Judge Clark was requested by the Government to advise on an appropriate scheme of redress arising from the findings of the Report. Having received Judge Clark's advice, the Government approved the establishment of a non-statutory ex gratia scheme of redress in 2007, and appointed Judge Clark as its chairperson.

The Lourdes Hospital Inquiry did not extend to a wider examination of Mr. Neary's general practice or the clinical practice of his colleagues. However, Judge Clark became aware during the course of the inquiry that some patients of Mr. Neary had undergone bilateral oophorectomies - that is, the removal of both ovaries or a single remaining ovary - that may not have been clinically warranted. The inquiry also received medical reports from women who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy with relatively little evidence that the procedures were warranted.

Judge Clark took advice on a selection of oophorectomy cases involving younger women treated by Mr. Neary. She was advised that while it is sometimes necessary to remove both ovaries in the presence of serious disease, the occasion of such a radical procedure is not common. This led her to conclude that unwarranted oophorectomies performed by Mr. Neary on women aged under 40 be included within the scope of the Redress Scheme. The Scheme was advertised on 14th June 2007.

The Lourdes Hospital Redress Board, chaired by Judge Clark has concluded its work and all awards determined have been notified to successful applicants. I have met with representatives of the women referred to by the Deputies on a number of occasions, to discuss issues of concern to them.

I was asked to consider an extension of the scope of the Scheme to include additional former patients of Mr. Neary outside of the terms of the Scheme. I gave due consideration to the request and consulted with Judge Clark in the matter who advised against an extension. Acting on this advice, I decided against an extension of the Scheme and this was publicly communicated in November 2008.

The Government believes that the Lourdes Hospital Redress Scheme addressed the matter in as sensitive and timely a manner as possible. It was always the Government's intention that the women who qualified for the Scheme would receive adequate recompense and I believe that that has been achieved in a fair and reasonable manner.