Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

395. To ask the Minister for Health if he will meet with persons (details supplied) as per their request; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22920/17]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have examined the details surrounding these cases and the position over the years relating to them. Unfortunately, the position as outlined in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 548, reference No. 26471, of 27 September, 2016, raised by the Deputy, concerning the small number of women who did not meet the criteria for either Scheme, remains unchanged.

Government approved the establishment of the Lourdes Hospital Redress Board in 2007 following detailed consideration of the findings of the Lourdes Hospital Inquiry. The Terms of Reference of the Redress Board, which were agreed by Government, were to provide compensation to women who were former patients of Dr Michael Neary, and who had unnecessary obstetric hysterectomies; and to women who were former patients of Dr Neary who were under 40 years of age when they underwent 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. A bilateral oophorectomy left the patient incapable of bearing any more children, as in the case of an obstetric hysterectomy, and in addition caused an immediate surgical menopause in the woman concerned. The Redress Board determined that awards were payable in 119 cases.

The Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme was later established on an independent basis in November 2013 in keeping with a commitment in the Programme for Government to make awards to an estimated 35 women over 40 years who had a bilateral oophorectomy, or the surgical removal of a single functioning ovary, but whose applications were rejected on age grounds alone by the Redress Board. In order to be compensated, each applicant had to have had an immediate menopause consequent upon the procedure and they had to show that the procedure was medically unwarranted. Each application was carefully assessed and the Scheme made awards to 47 women who met the criteria under the Terms of Reference. Thirty-eight applications were refused under the Scheme, because they did not meet the criteria for an award. The reasons for refusal in each cases is set out in the Final Report of the Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme, which is available on the Department's website. Another fifteen applications were withdrawn.

Both Schemes were administered independently and the medical records of all applicants were provided to the Administrator of each Scheme. Judge Maureen Harding Clark administered the Lourdes Hospital Redress Board and the State Claims Agency administered the Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme. The Department of Health did not have access to women's medical records.

Minister Varadkar, former Minister for Health, met Patient Focus during 2015 concerning a small number of women who were represented by that organisation, who did not meet the criteria to receive awards under either Scheme. Following this meeting, Department officials, with the assistance of the State Claims Agency, who had dealt with the medical records of the women as part of its assessment of applications to the Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme, carefully considered these cases and that of another woman, who had made representations to the Minister and Taoiseach and who was not a member of Patient Focus. Despite being sympathetic to the women, it was determined that the procedures outlined were clearly outside the terms of the Lourdes Redress Board and the Lourdes Hospital Payment Scheme.

As the situation remains unchanged since the meeting with Patient Focus and the consideration of these cases, my officials have advised that there is nothing further to be gained from a meeting with persons as requested by the Deputy. It is of course, open to any woman to seek redress or compensation in the normal way in conjunction with her legal advisors, should she believe that she has a personal injury claim.