asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the certification of the death and the cause of death in the case of the infant, Francis O'Brien, who died on 17th September, 1945; and whether the procedure adopted in this case is approved by him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Infant's Death.
It is clear from inquiries which have been made in this case that a certificate of the cause of death could not be issued for the reason that a registered medical practitioner was not called in to attend the child during its illness. On receipt of the coroner's certificate that an inquest was unnecessary, the registrar was under a statutory obligation to proceed to register the death. In the column headed "certified cause of death and duration of illness" the registrar recorded that there was no medical attendance.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied, where information is brought to the office of his social service organisation that a child has been found dead in its pram in a condition of advanced emaciation and its body covered with sores, that that child should be hurried into its grave without any attempt being made by the social service to come to the assistance of the family where that child has died, although it is known to them that there are four other children, one of whom is half-dead with rickets at the time? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that, in those circumstances, there should be some officer of the child welfare scheme or of some branch of the social service who would go to that house, ascertain what the needs of that family were, and take steps to ensure that no other of the four children would suffer the lamentable fate of the infant that died in the circumstances I have described?
I am not aware that the death of the infant in question was attributable to the causes the Deputy mentions.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a reliable person saw the body of the child and described it as emaciated to the point that it consisted of skin and bone; that a reliable witness described the condition of deplorable poverty that obtained in the room where the child died and that another witness alleged that the body of the child was covered with sores and that it had been a healthy child in the past? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not further aware that, to assume that a child of that kind, who showed signs of diarrhoea before its death and died from gastro-enteritis, is a wholly unjustifiable assumption, inasmuch as infant diarrhoea may be a symptom of a wide variety of infant diseases?
The Deputy is now making a speech.
But the Parliamentary Secretary says he knows nothing about it. I have, in fact, given the Minister's Department a full description of the case before I put down the question; I gave the Minister all the information that I have before me, so as not to take him unawares.
I did not state that I have no information about the case.
I have described the conditions that were observed by witnesses.
The information at my disposal does not tally with what the Deputy says.
The information I have is that a reliable witness saw the infant's body emaciated to the point of skin and bone. It was lying in its perambulator, dead. Is there anybody in this State, with all the money we are spending on social services, whose duty it is to go to that family and, whatever it costs, to provide them with the wherewithal so that no other child will be reduced to skin and bone and will die in its pram?
That is not the question the Deputy asked.
I asked if the procedure adopted was approved of, that the child should be shovelled into the grave and forgotten? I say that there is an obligation there in view of the circumstances. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that nothing should be done?
Is the Deputy aware that after the death of that baby the coroner decided that an inquest was not necessary? Is the Deputy also aware that approximately £2 6s. Od. of public funds was going into that house weekly for the maintenance of the household?
I am aware that the coroner issued a certificate without having seen the child or knowing anything about the child except that it died.
The Deputy is now making a speech.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary if, having these facts before him, and having ascertained that the child died of gastro-enteritis, being reduced to skin and bone, was there no one sufficiently interested to go and inquire in what way he could help?
That question has been asked twice.
Is the Deputy aware that the registrar was satisfied that the baby died from gastro-enteritis?
How could he be so? He never saw the child.
I am asking if the Deputy is aware that the doctor who registered the death was satisfied that the child died from gastro-enteritis.
How could he?
Probably the Deputy will allow me to answer. Is the Deputy aware that if the child was suffering from gastro-enteritis in a very short space of time it would be reduced to a condition of skin and bone?
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how could any doctor certify that the child died from gastro-enteritis if he had never seen the child? How could he form an opinion if the only symptom was diarrhoea, which is a symptom with almost every child in that condition? That is what I complain of.
I suggest that the doctor was in a better position to form an opinion than the Deputy.
He never saw the child and knew nothing of the circumstances.
Next question.