asked the Minister for Health on what date he got a report (if any) from the doctor who treated an infant that was refused such treatment at the Regional Hospital, Galway, on 23rd January, 1962.
7.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Treatment of Galway Infant.
6.
asked the Minister for Health how, in the absence of an examination on 23rd January, 1962, of an infant at Galway Regional Hospital, diagnosis was arrived at.
8.
asked the Minister for Health if he will ensure that in future no patient requiring medical treatment will be refused it at the Regional Hospital, Galway.
9.
asked the Minister for Health the source of his information that there was no public disquiet at the refusal of the medical authorities at the Regional Hospital, Galway, to give medical attention to an infant on the 23rd January, 1962.
I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, with your permission to take Questions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 together.
It is necessary, in order adequately to answer the Deputy's questions, to recount briefly the facts in this case. On 23rd January last, the parents of a 13 months old baby took the child to see their family doctor. He was out on a call at the time of their visit and they continued on to the Galway Regional Hospital. They arrived at the Paediatric Department at about 3 p.m. They informed the staff nurse whom they saw there that the child had been constipated for three days, that she was irritable and was not feeding very well. They gave the same information to the nurse in charge and to the House Physician. The child had been discharged, cured, from this Department of the hospital only a few days previously and the doctor was familiar with her medical history. He questioned the mother closely about the symptoms and put a number of questions to her about the child's health, including whether the child had had a convulsion, any cough, hoarseness or pain. The mother replied in the negative to these questions. The doctor reported that during this time, the child was sleeping quietly in her mother's arms, her colour was good and there was no evidence of respiratory difficulty; she was not flushed or sweating. The doctor then explained to the parents that the constipation was a very simple condition to remedy which was probably due to the change of diet and feeding hours after discharge from hospital, that her family doctor could treat the condition very easily and that she was not a case for admission to hospital. The parents appeared to be satisfied at this stage to proceed as the hospital doctor suggested and have the condition treated by the family doctor.
It appears that later in the day the father approached Deputy Coogan. The Deputy went with the parents and child to the Casualty Department of the Hospital about 6 p.m. and having met the nurse-in-charge the Deputy left. The parents repeated to nurses and to the Casualty Officer the history of the child's complaint as previously given. The Casualty Officer questioned the mother and had the child's temperature taken. He explained that, in the Casualty Department, only casualties and emergencies and patients referred by doctors are dealt with. The House Physician, Paediatric Department, who was then summoned, again spoke to the parents and reiterated that the child's admission to hospital was not warranted.
The parents, later the same evening, brought the child to a general practitioner, who applied the appropriate treatment. The father reported subsequently that the child was very well since being treated. Those are the simple facts.
In reply to the specific questions of the Deputy:
Question No. 6: The doctor concerned made no report to me. The Deputy is, however, aware that this doctor has stated that admission to hospital was totally unnecessary in this case.
Question No. 7: In the course of my outline of the facts of the case I have described what the parents said at the hospital about the child's condition and what the hospital staff observed. Taken together these were the basis of the diagnosis made.
Question No. 8: I reject as unfounded and unwarranted any suggestion that the staff of Galway Regional Hospital would fail to afford proper attention in any case appropriate for treatment in or at the hospital. The Deputy should be well aware that it is no part of the function of a hospital to parallel, except in circumstances of grave emergency, the services being provided by the general practitioners in the area.
Question No. 9: The Deputy ascribes to me by implication a statement I did not make. What I said, in the letter which I caused to be sent to the Health Authority on 29th ultimo, was that "on present information" I was not satisfied that the occurrence had occasioned public disquiet. The Deputy first raised the question, in the course of a discussion on salaries, and without prior notice to anybody so far as I can discover, at a meeting of the Health Authority on 24th February last. His remarks were quoted in the report of that meeting which appeared in a local newspaper. Despite the publicity thus afforded to the Deputy's allegations, I heard nothing about the matter until some months later. I have no doubt that if there did, in fact, exist that degree of public disquiet which the Deputy alleges, representations would have been made to me to that effect. My attention was first drawn to the affair by a letter dated 6th June last from the Health Authority asking for a sworn inquiry, which, for the reasons I have indicated, I did not regard as warranted by the circumstances of the case. I have since read the report of the meeting of the Health Authority on the 7th instant; it does not lend any support to the Deputy's allegation about public disquiet. I am, therefore, still not satisfied on present information that any disquiet exists.
Finally, I feel I should inform Dáil Éireann, in connection with this matter generally, that on 2nd March last the senior medical staff of the hospital put themselves on record in the following terms:
"That the members of Medical Staff having considered all aspects of this complaint take a very serious view of the report which appeared in Tuesday's issue of a local newspaper. They highly commend the Co. Manager's responsible approach to the incident and his practical recommendation for dealing with such matters in future. They concur in his view that the statements reported as having been made were slanderous and they could not guarantee to restrain the doctor involved from taking such further action as he deemed fit. They point out that such adverse and baseless publicity affects not only the hospital, which has high international reputation, but also the social, industrial and commercial aspects of the economy.
They consider that at least public apology is called for which will be given as much publicity as the complaint.
They also desire to have their commendations of Dr. Jordan's statement recorded."
Arising out of the Minister's cover-up statement, for that is what it amounts to, he has admitted that the parents made the diagnosis for the medical staff. Is that correct? That is No. 1. Seeing that he accepted the diagnosis, why did that child have to go 17 miles away from the hospital for treatment? With regard to the question of disquiet, the Minister is so far removed from Galway as not to be aware of the real situation. Any time he likes to come there I will let him know. The people have good reason for disquiet. Further, will the Minister state who signed this report of the medical authority? I should like to let the Minister know that, while I am in public life, I have no apology to make to the Minister or the medical authority for doing my duty.
Question No. 10.
I should like to hear the Minister reply to some of the points I have made. Do not cover up for him; do not try to save him.
I am not trying to save anybody.
I do not intend to help the Deputy to raise a public storm about a baby's flatulence.
Is it not obvious that the Minister has a verbal complaint the exact opposite of the baby's?
Vocal constipation the Minister is suffering from.
Question No. 10.
Will the Minister not reply? Is he still trying to cover up?
I have called Question No. 10.