asked the Minister for Health if he will place in the Library the full text of the speech in which he is reported to have said in relation to his dispute with the medical profession that he must act in the interests of the public for, if control of the situation was handed over to the medical profession, the public would become so much butcher's meat.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Minister's Speech: Availability in Library.
12.
I am glad of the opportunity which the Deputy's question gives me to put the phrase to which it refers in the correct context in which it was used.
Towards the end of a Press conference which I held on the 12th March last, a query was put to me which seemed to imply that I had dealt harshly with the former County Surgeon attached to the Mallow County Hospital, whom I had removed from office in May, 1959. Rebutting the suggestion I recalled that I had been compelled to take this action following the inquiry into the death of a young farm labourer, with a wife and two children, who had been sent from a District Hospital to the County Hospital, then at Fermoy, to be examined and, if necessary, operated on by the County Surgeon there. I pointed out that the terms and conditions on which the County Surgeon in question was appointed to his post obliged him first of all to attend all surgical cases in the hospital and see that they received such surgical treatment and advice and assistance as may be necessary, and secondly to perform all such surgical operations as may be proper to be performed by him in the hospital. I also mentioned, incidentally, that for this duty he received a salary of £1,517 per annum, was entitled to use four of the hospital beds for the accommodation of his private patients and could engage in consultative practice. I then went on to say that the unfortunate young man concerned was not seen or examined by the County Surgeon. Instead he was examined by the House Surgeon, a young man who at that time had only about eight or nine months' surgical experience since he qualified as a doctor and who, as the result showed, was not sufficiently experienced to undertake a major surgical operation unaided or without proper supervision. The young House Surgeon reported by telephone the result of his examination to the County Surgeon, who was at his residence nearly twenty miles away. Despite the inexperience of the House Surgeon at the time, the County Surgeon directed him to commence an operation on the patient at 8.15 p.m. He did not himself leave his home to come to the hospital until he had been specially sent for because of a complication which had developed in the course of the operation, arriving at 9.45 p.m. It was then too late to save the unfortunate young patient who, having been over 4 hours on the operating table, was removed therefrom in a dying condition and died very shortly afterwards.
In reply to some further questions on this matter, I explained that the Minister for Health is charged by statute with the duty of protecting the interests of all persons who avail of services under the Health Acts. Some suggestion having been made that perhaps the Mallow issue could be settled by a compromise on my part, I went on to state that if the Irish Medical Association, by the imposition of a boycott, were allowed to bring about a situation in which a Minister for Health would be inhibited from carrying out the duties and obligations imposed on him by law, the public would be deprived of protection against the neglect of a medical practitioner who might be tempted to put his own convenience before his duty to the public. Any compromise on this issue, I added, would be tantamount to permitting a patient to be regarded as so much butcher's meat.
The phrase was used only in the narrow context of the Mallow episode and of the action of the Irish Medical Association in seeking, by the use of the boycott weapon, to protect the officer concerned in that episode. It appears to be implied in the question that the phrase had application to the general body of doctors. I take this opportunity of saying that any such inference is quite unjustifiable. On the contrary, I have good reason to have the highest opinion of the humanity, integrity and devotion to their patients of the members of the profession in general.
As the Deputy will appreciate, there could be no script of my replies to question; but I am arranging to place in the Library a copy of my short opening statement at the Conference.
Do I understand from the Minister's reply that he had not been aware of the report of his remarks which appeared in the Sunday Dispatch and other newspapers and which is referred to in the question? Has the Minister not been aware of such a report?
When the Deputy sits down I shall answer.
Perhaps I might ask the Minister another one. If he had been aware that his statement was so reported, why did the Minister not avail of the services of the Government Information Bureau to contradict the report, if it was not accurate?
I was aware of that statement but I do not feel called upon to correct every misreporting of a statement made by an Irish Minister which may happen to be published in an English newspaper.
Might I ask the Taoiseach whether, with the approach of Easter and all it means to the civilised world, he would take some steps to create a climate which would bring to an end this unseemly and disedifying quarrel, with all these unnecessary and expensive statements, all of which tend seriously to the derogation and deterioration of the health services? Left to the Minister, this war will outlast the historic Seven Years War.
The Hundred Years War.
Something should be done to bring it to an end without loss of face on either side.