Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 89: To ask the Minister for Health and Children when she last met with victims of Michael Neary or their representatives or both; 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. [45889/10]

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 90: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the measures she will take to fairly and justly meet the case and needs of those women whose suffering at the hands of the former obstetrician and gynaecologist Michael Neary has yet to be officially recognised and appropriately responded to; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [45890/10]

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 91: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the advice she has received that led her to decide that women who had reached their 40th birthday were not to be included under the terms of the Lourdes hospital redress scheme she established; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [45891/10]

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 92: 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; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [45892/10]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 89 to 92, inclusive, together. I recently met with Patient Focus in the context of the Report of the Drogheda Review, prepared by Mr. T. C. Smyth.

The Lourdes Hospital Redress Scheme was established following an Inquiry into peripartum hysterectomy at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. The Inquiry was 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 has now concluded its work and all awards determined have been notified to successful applicants.

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 has been achieved in a fair and reasonable manner.