The surgical symphysiotomy payment scheme commenced on 10 November 2014. It was estimated that 350 women would apply to the scheme, but in fact 577 applications have been accepted. The applications are being assessed by former High Court judge Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark.
Contrary to the Deputy's assertion, the scheme has brought about an end to years of uncertainty and costs for women who have undergone surgical symphysiotomy. The scheme was designed to be simple, straightforward and non-adversarial and it aims to minimise the stress for all women concerned. The scheme was designed following meetings with all three support groups, two of which have welcomed its establishment. It was set up to give women who do not wish to pursue their cases through the courts an alternative option in which payments are made to women who have had a surgical symphysiotomy, whether or not negligence is proven.
The scheme is voluntary and women did not waive their rights to take their cases to court as a precondition of participation in the scheme. Women may opt out of the scheme at any stage in the process, up to the time of accepting their award. It is only on accepting the offer of an award that they must agree to discontinue legal proceedings against any party arising out of a symphysiotomy or pubiotomy.
Ms Justice Clark has informed my officials that as of 3 July 2015, 235 offers have been made to women. In some cases, however, the applicants or their legal advisers have not yet provided the necessary documentation and information in support of their applications. Ms Justice Clark has indicated that she will write to each of these applicants to request that all outstanding documentation and information that the applicant may wish to rely on in the assessment of their application is furnished to the scheme. The judge will specify a time limit in which information must be furnished and after this time has expired, the applications will proceed to assessment on the basis of the documentation and information furnished. Given the legal and other costs involved and the frailty of some of the women, the judge wishes to ensure that the scheme does not continue for longer than is necessary.
Ms Justice Clark has commissioned medical experts in the areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, radiology and orthopaedic surgery to assist her in assessing applications where there is an absence of available evidence either that the procedure was undertaken or of its consequences on the health of the woman. The three consultants concerned are eminently qualified in their respective fields to do this work.
The Government has given careful and detailed consideration to this complex and sensitive matter. It believes that the provision of the scheme, together with the ongoing provision of medical services by the HSE, including medical cards, represents a comprehensive response to this issue that should help bring resolution for the women - many of whom are elderly - and their families.
