Deputy Desmond has given notice that he wishes to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 28 on to-days Order Paper.
Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Complaint of Treatment of Cork Post-Polio Patient.
in answering Question No. 28 to-day, the Minister made it clear that he agreed with the views of the county medical officer and the city manager but I wonder if the Minister knows of the verbal report of the county medical officer to a meeting of the Cork County Council Health Committee on October 8th? It is interesting to recall the facts in relation to this unfortunate case. In June of last year the father of this little boy approached me and explained his worry over the fact that the boy had not been getting polio treatment for four months prior to that date. He did explain to me that some unfortunate words of bitterness took place between the offical concerned and the mother of the little boy. I made it clear then —I have no hesitation in saying—that I would not condone, under any normal circumstances, anyone abudsing officials, if such should be the case.
I approached the county medical officer and explained the position to him. I told him I had been informed of a serious disagreement between the mother of the boy and the official concerned. I also told him that my interest, and my only interest in the case, was to try to get treatment for that unfortunate polio victim. The doctor promised to co-operate to the best of his ability and, let me say, he did that. Near the end of June I received a letter from the county medical officer stating that the boy was to be treated and that an ambulance was arriving for him on the following Thursday. As far as I was concerned that closed the case. Let me say, at this stage, that I did not approach the father of the boy then. I did not send the letter I received from the county medical officer to the parents because I believed that in view of the fact that the child was then going to get the required treatment that that was the end of it.
Time passed on and to my amazement around the middle of October the father made a further complaint to me. He informed me that no treatment had been given to the boy. Naturally, I was somewhat taken aback at that statement. I produced the letter received from the county medical officer and showed it to him. I made further inquiries from the county medical officer during the month of August and again during September. He, in turn, informed me that while he was anxious to do everything possible to help, his difficulty was that he, as county medical officer, had no control whatever over the official concerned—the physiotherapist—because that official was employed solely by the Cork Corporation and the Cork County Council were paying only for patients who were being treated there. I begged him to do everything possible. I told him that surely the child should not be made a victim of this unfortunate dispute.
October came and, as I informed the county medical officer, owing to the fact that no results had been shown, it had to be a case of raising the matter and discussing it at the health services meeting. That took place on Monday, 8th all members present, the county medical officer explained his difficult position. He reiterated his statement in relation to the fact that as the physiotherapist concerned was employed directly by the Cork Corporation, he could do nothing other than request that the treatment be given. Strange to say, near the end of that meeting the county medical officer did inform us that treatment was being resumed on the next day. All members present heard the discussion and many members took part in it. It was a unanimous decision of all members present—members of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party —that the city manager be asked to inform the committee of the position, through the county manager,and to explain why it was that a service paid for by the ratepayers in Country Cork was not being put at the disposal of this unfortunate boy.
It is true that a reply arrived from the city manager in due course. it is equally true to say that all members were not satisfied with that reply. On unanimous decision again, the case was referred to the Minister for Health. The Minister's answer as given to-day now comes in. It is interesting to draw attention to his answer. He stated that after acknowledgment by his Department the matter was referred to a medical inspector of his Department for investigation. In the Minister's reply, he states that the medical inspector communicated with the county medical officer of health. Am I right in suggesting that the inquiry was made in writing? Am I right in suggesting that nothing else was done, according to the Minister's reply, except to write to the county medical officer inquiring as to the faots of the case?
The Minister informed the House to-day that he was satisfied with the reply and with what the county medical officer stated on the 2nd January. But it is important to draw particular attention to what the county medical officer stated in the report. Apparently, on the 2nd January, the county medical officer stated that treatment was resumed on the 9th October, up to early in December and that treatment was given three times a week. May I say prior to February or March when treatment was discontinued, owing to the unfortunate row, treatment was given twice a week? That child was left without any treatment between, roughly, around the middle of March up to the period in October.
Is it not significant that, according to the report of the county medical officer, treatment had to be given three times a week then to make up for that time lag? Is it not strange, as reported in the Minister's statement, that while that treatment was resumed on the 9th October the boy had to enter hospital again early in September? I know, of course, that the Minister in his reply will probably direct particular attention to the abuse given by the parent of the child to the official. I made it clear at the start, to the parents and to the county medical officer, that I would not stand for such abuse but, let me say this, that the statement made by the parent of the child concerned bears as much weight with me as a statement made by any official. If it be true that the words alleged to have been used by the official concerned were used, not towards the parent, but towards the unfortunate child itself, the towards the unfortunate child itself, the unfortunate victim of such a disease, then it would be very hard for any mother to hold her temper. Does the Minister know that?
The Minister's statement to-day makes it very clear that he got, through the inspector of the Department, a statement from the county medical officer on the 2nd January. May I ask why, if statements were being received, were they confined to the county medical officer? May I ask why the Minister was quite happy to accept the view of the city manager? Was it because the view of the city manager coincided with the view of the county medical officer? May I ask why the view of the county manager was not taken? May I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, was the pbysiotherapist in question asked for any statement? Did the Minister get any statement from the official concerned? Were the parents of the child asked for any statement? They volunteered statements at the very start. Did the Minister or the county medical officer get any statement, verbal or written, from the parents?
We now come to the important aspect of this case. The Minister is quite happy to accept the statement of the county medical officer on the 2nd January, but from what county medical officer may I ask did he get that statement? Is the Minister aware that the person who gave that statement as county medical officer on the 2nd January was a person who had, I believe, nothing whatever to do with the case in its early period? Is the Minister aware that when I, owing to my duty to all concerned, had to intervene on behalf of that child with the county medical officer, it was a different person held the position? Is he aware that the county medical officer who dealt with the case during June, July, August and October had in November or thereabouts, accepted the Position of city medical officer? We are, therefore, in a position that the Minister for Health is accepting a statement from a person—a very decent person and a highly qualified person—who had nothing to do with the case in the early months.
Furthermore, that county medical officer in january stated that the trouble arose out of the fact that the parent refused to obey instructions. Is the Minister aware that, because of the unfortunate row that developed between the parents and the oficial, the official made it perfectly clear to the parent that until she apologised to the official then, but not until then, would that child get treatment? Is the Minister satisfied when it is shown that even though that statement was made at the health services committee meeting on the 8th October it was not contradicted by the city manager or the physiotherapist as far as we were concerned? Therefore, we are in the extraordinary position of having no statement present to the Minister by the parents concerned.
We are told that because the woman refused to obey instructions, which in this case amounted to an apology to an official, her little boy would not get the necessary treatment, in that case between the months of the spring time and October, 1957. Is the Minister satisfied with all these facts? I should like to know where do we stand in relation to this case. I know, of course, the Minister made it quite clear long before now, that in his view I was antagonistic towards the doctors and the people concerned. I ignore that statement. I have no reason to worry about it. I believe in fair play towards all but, even at this late stage is it not possible by having the case reopened to have justice done? Let the Minister accuse me as one member but in this case he is accusing every member of the Cork City Council Health Services Committee. He will be accusing every member of his own Party on that committee who agreed wholeheartedly in having the case investigated.
The Minister should realise that in dealing with these cases under the Health Act we are on serious ground. As I stated last week we believed that with the introduction of the Health Act we would give to these people a service to which they were entitled. We called on the ratepayers to contribute to that service. We considered it was right and proper to do so but, in this particular case where we have the statements of all concerned, it is shown that while the ratepayers were paying for a service they were getting no return, and the unfortunate child in this case was not getting treatment. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to have the matter reinvestigated. I would ask the Minister to realise, should he wish to adopt the attitude of blaming a parent, that he has not got from any fair source the true facts of the case. I have no doubt that the inspector in this case did his work to the best of his ability and was animated by the best motives in the world, but he was asked by the Minister to investigate it only in so far as the county medical officer was concerned. There was no suggestion by the Minister that the inspector was asked to get a statement from anybody else. The Minister and I may differ in this case but the tragedy is that while we, as individuals, differ, if more cases like this come before the public people will lose heart and will lose faith in the health services if those services are not giving a decent, adequate service to people in need.
I shall be very brief in what I have to say. Deputy Desmond was not present when this incident took place. Neither was I, but I have a written statement by the parent of the child which makes it quite clear that she insisted on remaining while the child was being treated, in defiance of the regulations, that not only did she remain there smoking and chatting but kept the attendant who was employed to look after confined children in earnest conversation. The physiotherapist quite properly said, in my opinion, if the regulations were not properly obeyed she could not deal with the number of patients present ing themselves for treatment. Deputy Desmond was not there; neither was I, but the matter was investigated by the inspecting officers of the health authority concerned, and I am not prepared to pass over their heads and hold an independent inquiry to satisfy the vanity of a woman who would not apologise in order that her child should be properly treated.
We shall have it on the Health Estimate. The Minister will not escape like that.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, the 27th March, 1958.