asked the Minister for the Public Service if he is aware that a civil servant (name supplied) in County Mayo has been dismissed from the civil service on the grounds of ill-health due to alcoholism without being medically examined by the local departmental medical officer, the chief medical officer or a medical referee; if, in view of the fact that six private doctors including two senior consultant psychiatrists have certified this man as fit to resume duty, he is satisfied with the manner in which the medical decision was taken; and if he will arrange for an inquiry in the case.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mayo Civil Servant.
71.
The officer concerned was retired on health grounds, with a lump sum and ill-health pension, because it had become clear on medical evidence that there was no prospect of his giving regular and efficient service in the future. I am satisfied that considerable compassion and forbearance had been shown here, that the decision taken was the proper one and that no special inquiry into the case is called for.
Would the Minister indicate what he means by "compassion and forbearance" shown to this employee? Is the Minister satisfied that the human problems and aspects of this situation were taken into consideration?
The law requires that the chief medical officer consider cases of this kind and he did so in this case. The review covered a period of some 12 years and during that period a considerable amount of consideration was given to the problems of the officer in question.
Do I detect from the Minister's reply to my supplementary a watering down of what he said initially? Were the reports of the private doctor taken into consideration? Would the Minister not agree that the Department of the Public Service should set a headline on the approach where a human problem may exist in an individual case?
Of course, the law and the practice requires that every aspect of a case should be taken into consideration. Deputies should not assume that all that they have heard about a particular case necessarily reflects the full medical facts of the case. In the case in question there was more than the issue of alcoholism but it would not be in the interests of the person concerned were I to furnish any further information. Indeed, it would be contrary to medical ethics if details were to be furnished and published. The Deputy may be assured that everything possible was done.
When was this individual examined by somebody from his Department? What are the qualifications of the person who carried out the examination? Was that person a psychiatrist or did he have any qualifications in psychiatry?
There were several medical examinations and innumerable medical certificates from many qualified people, including psychiatrists, available to the medical officers before decision was reached.
Can the Minister give the dates?
I have not the date but it covered a period of 12 years in all.
Will the Minister tell the House the latest date?
I am sorry I have not the latest date before me.
Will the Minister tell the House the qualifications of the medical people involved?
No. I am satisfied the medical officer and the medical referees acted properly and, on the basis of the information furnished to them, there was no alternative but for them to recommend that the person was not capable of continuing in the public service.
Will the Minister state if any cognisance has been taken of the medical reports submitted by the last psychiatrist who examined the person?
Both of the medical referees had before them the psychiatric reports of the person in question.
Will the Minister not agree that alcoholism is a disease and, if this man's health has improved, would the Minister not review the case?
I have already said that there was more than alcoholism involved in this case.
I take the point made by the Minister but I am asking him if he will review the case.
The case was reviewed——
I am calling the next question. I have allowed considerable latitude on this question.
Would the Minister not consider the case?
It is not open to the Minister to decide these issues. They are decided by the chief medical officer and if his view is not acceptable to the person concerned the matter is considered by the medical referee. When they certify a person is not capable of discharging the duties of his office there is no option open to the Minister but to act on the basis of the medical evidence. I am sure Deputies will accept that in many cases the best interests of the person concerned can be served by accepting the medical advice and not by presuming to go against it, which in any event the Minister is not empowered to do.
When we were in Government we were confronted with this problem. I would ask the Minister to reconsider——
This is not in order. I have called the next question.
Deputies may be assured of my own personal compassion and anxiety in this and in all cases. They may also be assured that compassion and anxiety has been exhibited to the full by everyone who considered the unfortunate case in question.