Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 May 2000

Vol. 519 No. 2

Written Answers. - Departmental Meetings.

John Browne

Question:

182 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason senior officials from his Department criticised a hospital (details supplied) in Dublin 12 for its apology to parents affected by its post-mortem practice. [13557/00]

John Browne

Question:

185 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Health and Children if he can reconcile the apparent collapse and subsequent hospitalisation of a person (details supplied) during the course of a meeting with representatives from a group (details supplied) on 13 January 2000 with directions issued by a senior official in his Department to the authorities in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin that this person should be briefed and a set of ground rules set to ensure that he was protected by his colleagues and that if the meeting became too difficult, he was to withdraw if necessary; and his views on whether this person's collapse was coincidental or whether it was orchestrated by his Department. [13560/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 182 and 185 together.

In January of this year my Department made every effort to ensure that hospitals responded to the needs of parents following disclosure of post mortem examination practices and organ tissue retention. This was in line with the undertaking previously given by the then Minister that a systematic and comprehensive response to the concerns of parents and families would be speedily adopted by all health agencies. It had been clarified to all agencies that this response must ensure that the individual needs of parents and families would and should, at a minimum, include the provision of specific information, counselling and other appropriate support services where required.

The priority needs at that time were for information and support to parents in an effort to relieve the trauma and renewed grief being experienced.

It was in this context that the telephone advice to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children was issued by my Department on 13 January 2000 and subsequently confirmed in writing. The Department was trying to ensure that the hospital's response to parents would be appropriate to meet their expressed wishes. This is evident from the written confirmation to the hospital and I am making a copy of this communication available to the Deputy together with a copy of the relevant press statement from the medical board of the hospital.

I have been informed that the pathologist's medical condition genuinely necessitated his withdrawal from the meeting and that there is no question that my Department or the hospital in any way orchestrated or staged his departure from the meeting. All of these matters have been fully explained by the relevant Department official to the parents in question at a recent public meeting.
Top
Share