Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

788. To ask the Minister for Health further to Parliamentary Question No. 73 of 22 October 2015, the name of the orthopaedic surgeon who has been retained by the surgical symphysiotomy payment scheme. [38042/15]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Surgical Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme is operating very well since it was established on 10 November 2014. It was estimated that 350 women would apply to the Scheme, but in fact 578 applications have been accepted by the Scheme and as at 23 October 2015, 317 offers have been made.

Judge Clark has confirmed to my officials that she consults leaders in the fields of obstetrics, gynaecology, orthopaedics, pelvic surgery and radiology to assist her in assessing applications. The consultants concerned are eminently qualified in their respective fields to do this work. As the operation of the Scheme is independent, it is a matter for the Judge to decide what or whose medical expertise is required. The Judge will publish details of these experts in her final report to the Minister, but she is not prepared to have them personally challenged in their role as her advisers at this stage.

It may be useful to point out to the Deputy that “surgical symphysiotomy”means a procedure undertaken for obstetric purposes, involving the cutting of the pubic symphysis, which excludes the spontaneous separation of the pubic symphysis during childbirth.The majority of women who applied to the scheme had undergone this procedure and a proportion of that cohort had significant disability as a result of the procedure. Their awards were either €50,000 or €100,000, depending on the extent of the disability resulting from the procedure. A further amount of €150,000 is awardable where a symphysiotomy was carried out immediately following caesarean section and caused significant disability.

A “pubiotomy” means a procedure undertaken for obstetric purposes, which cuts through the pubic bone. A very small percentage of the Applicants had undergone this procedure. Pubiotomy carries an award of €100,000 once the procedure is established and €150,000 if significant disability is established.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

789. To ask the Minister for Health further to Parliamentary Question No. 76 of 22 October 2015, the reason oral testimonies are not being heard. [38043/15]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Surgical Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme is operating very well since it was established on 10 November 2014. It was estimated that 350 women would apply to the Scheme, but in fact 578 applications have been accepted by the Scheme and as at 23 October 2015, 317 offers have been made.

The Scheme has brought to an end years of uncertainty and costs for women who have undergone surgical symphysiotomy. The Scheme was designed following meetings with all three support groups, two of which have welcomed its establishment. It was set up to give women who do not wish to pursue their cases through the courts an alternative option in which payments are made to women have had a surgical symphysiotomy, whether or not negligence is proven. The Scheme is voluntary and women did not waive their rights to take their cases to court as a precondition to participating in the Scheme.

In the interest of accountability, the Scheme requires each Applicant to prove that she had a surgical symphysiotomy or pubiotomy in order to be considered for the assessment of an award. The level of proof required is clearly set out in the terms of the Scheme.  As the Scheme is designed to be simple, straight forward and non-adversarial, the women are not expected to give oral testimonies as they might do in a court setting. I understand, however, that Judge Clark, Assessor for the Scheme has met with women in different parts of the country, where she considered it necessary, particularly in cases where women have been unable to locate hospital records.

I believe that Judge Clark operates the Scheme in a generous manner within its terms and in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness.

The Government has given careful and detailed consideration to this complex and sensitive matter. It believes that the provision of the Scheme, together with the ongoing provision of medical services by the HSE, including medical cards, represents a comprehensive response to this issue, which should help bring resolution for the women, many of whom are elderly, and their families.