Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 5

Written Answers. - Medical Practitioners.

John McGuinness

Question:

146 Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Health and Children if his Department has cleared a person (details supplied) to practice here; if the person's Dublin office is arranging appointments; if so, the reasons therefor; if the person has files in their possession on patients they treated while here; if the person is still in contact with those patients without their consent; if he will investigate the complaints; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31773/03]

John McGuinness

Question:

147 Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Health and Children the ongoing action he is taking in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the family are still troubled by the doctor concerned and that he is leaking certain confidential information to the media on an ongoing basis; if he is in consultation with the UK medical or legal authorities regarding the issue; if he will insist on proper treatment and care being made available in a planned way now and for the future for this person; the reasons the person is in St. Joseph's Hospital, Clonmel, without planned treatment and not at Marino therapy centre, Dublin in which it was agreed the person should be cared for; if he will insist on a full report from the South-Eastern Health Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31774/03]

Minister for Health and Children (Mr. Martin)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 146 and 147 together.

I have been informed that the doctor concerned in the case is currently fully registered as a medical practitioner by the Medical Council. The council has a registered address for each registered medical practitioner. My inquiries have not resulted in any information about him practising from an office in Dublin or appointments arranged there at this point.

The SEHB has informed me that it has concerns on foot of difficulties experienced in seeking the return of the medical and nursing notes of a patient. This could be considered to be in breach of the provisions of the Medical Council's ethical guide. Standards on professional confidentiality and the media are also addressed in the guide.

The board has also informed me that it is aware that the person was in contact with a patient from the board. Last April it wrote to him asking him to desist from further contact with the patient.

Under the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, the Medical Council was established as the statutory authority that oversees the registration and regulation of doctors. It also evaluates the suitability of the medical education and training provided by any body within the State. The council, on receipt of a complaint from an individual or agency about a registered medical practitioner, is in a position to commence fitness to practise proceedings to take appropriate action when there are grounds to do so. Arising from section 45(5) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978 information about findings of any fitness to practise committee on any matter referred to it and the decision of the council, on any report made to such committee, cannot be made public unless and until any person so investigated is found guilty of professional misconduct or unfit to practise medicine without such person's consent.

Responsibility for the care and treatment of the individual named by the Deputy rests with the board. My Department has asked its chief executive officer to investigate the matters raised by him and to reply directly to him.