asked the Minister for Health if he will state (a) whether representations have been made to his Department regarding the failure of the dispensary medical officer to attend to a patient (Medical Card No. T. 2/4376) at Bishopstown, Cork, (b) the date of such representations, (c) the dates of correspondence on the matter between South Cork Board of Public Assistance and his Department, and (d) whether a decision has been made on the matter and, if so, what decision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Medical Attendance on Cork Patient.
On 26th February, 1957, a letter was received from the secretary of the South Cork Board of Public Assistance regarding the alleged failure of the district medical officer to visit a patient at Bishopstown, Cork. The views of the county manager on the complaint were requested on the 8th March, 1957, and these were received in my Department on 16th March, 1957. Further communications were received from the board on 4th September, 1957, 26th November, 1957, and 12th February, 1958, and letters issued from my Department on 26th October, 1957, and 7th February, 1958.
During the course of the investigation of the complaint, it became apparent that the large number of patients covered by medical cards in the dispensary district in which the complaint arose had a bearing on the issue and it was thought desirable to examine more fully this aspect of the matter, which had been under discussion with the local authority for some time, before disposing of the original complaint which has been investigated by a medical inspector of my Department.
I am considering the medical inspector's report and I hope to arrive at a decision shortly.
In view of the fact that the Minister has the full file in front of him for over 12 months is he still satisfied that under the Health Act a medical officer can refuse assistance to a person covered by a medical card as in this case? Further may I ask the Minister does he believe it fair to put over an excuse that because of a so called number of people under the care of this medical officer, refusal to attend a patient can be allowed? Thirdly—which is important—is the Minister going to decide at any time as to whether the doctor had the right to refuse on the grounds that he had no petrol allowance at the time of the Suez Canal affair to make whatever visits were necessary, at a time when he had such petrol allowance?
There is a conflict of evidence in this case. I think I am looking at the case much more objectively than the Deputy is. I understand he has an old grievance in regard to this matter. All I have to say about it is that in this case the only breach which the doctor made of the regulations was that he gave the mother of the child a ticket that the baby should be admitted to hospital. That is the only case I know of and, while he has been guilty of a breach of the regulations in not seeing the child in the first instance, I am not at all satisfied that it was to the detriment of the patient.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, is the Minister aware that a certificate for admission of the child to the local hospital was issued by a doctor at the time without having seen the baby at all? Secondly is he aware that the diagnosis in this particular case was proved to be wrong when the child was admitted to the hospital? Thirdly is he aware, in relation to his personal insinuation to me, that I have never met the doctor in my life, that I have never spoken to the doctor in my life and that I know nothing whatsoever about him?
I do not know what chit-chat the Deputy might have had with the doctor or about the doctor but I am satisfied that the breach of the regulations in the actual circumstances of this particular case was not a very serious one.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, may I ask the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
On a point of order, Sir, I wonder is it in order for the Minister to imply in his reply that the basis for this question by the Deputy is, as he holds, that the Deputy has an old grievance against the doctor. That is an insinuation which should not be allowed here, I think, when there is no basis whatsoever for it.
How do you know?
I know as much about it, and a lot more than the Minister does.
Has the Minister had Party representations regarding this matter? I assume by his attitude that he had.
No; but this man has an honourable national record— which is more than the Deputy has.
Can I have a ruling, Sir, on the point of order I raised? Will the Chair rule as to whether or not the Minister was in order in making the implication he did in his reply?
I cannot rule as the Deputy wishes me in this case. The Minister said that the Deputy had an old grievance against the doctor. Surely members of the Dáil are not so thin-skinned as to take offence at that.
You are ruling it is quite in order?
I am ruling that the particular remark made by the Minister in this case is not, in my opinion, disorderly.
It is just typical of the Minister for Health.