Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

173. To ask the Minister for Health why a person (details supplied) in County Louth has been excluded from the Lourdes hospital redress scheme. [43235/15]

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

The original Lourdes Hospital Redress Board was set up in 2007 as a response to the Lourdes Hospital Inquiry. The objective of the Redress Board was to provide compensation to women who were former patients of Dr Michael Neary, who had unnecessary obstetric hysterectomies and also to women under 40 years of age who had unnecessary bilateral oophorectomies, i.e. the removal of both ovaries or a remaining single functioning ovary at the time of obstetric hysterectomy, or as a gynaecological procedure. In each case the surgical procedure would have led to early menopause. The Redress Board determined that awards were payable in 119 cases.

Following on from this, the Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme was set up in November 2013 in keeping with a commitment in the Programme for Government to make awards to women over 40 who had a bilateral oophorectomy, or removal of a single functioning ovary, but whose applications were rejected on age grounds alone by the Redress Board. To date 45 awards have been made with a small number of applications awaiting final determination. Thirty seven applications were refused under this latter Scheme, because they did not meet the criteria for awards and another 9 applications were withdrawn.

The criteria for eligibility under both Schemes were very clear and unfortunately the person who has requested consideration of her case did not meet the criteria for either Scheme. The total gross cost of both Schemes to date is €23.4m. With contributions from indemnifiers of €7.7m, the net cost to the Exchequer is therefore €15.7m.

I met with Patient Focus during Summer 2015 concerning a small number of women who were represented by Patient Focus, who did not meet the criteria to receive awards under either of the schemes. Following this meeting my officials carefully considered this matter. Having looked at the cases in question, and the broad range of conditions detailed, despite being sympathetic to the plight of the women, I do not propose to seek approval from Government to establish a further Redress Scheme. It is of course, open to any woman to seek redress or compensation in the normal way should her legal adviser determine she has a case.