Vol. 531 No. 4
22 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Health and Children his views on the health board investigation on medical practice leading to a high level of caesarean hysterectomies in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth; the steps he is taking to deal with this issue and to ensure that women are protected from such practices in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6130/01]
The matter raised by the Deputy is an important and sensitive one and is being handled accordingly by the North Eastern Health Board which has statutory responsibility for the management of services at the hospital to which she referred.
The North Eastern Health Board notified my Department immediately when this issue first came to light and I have been kept fully informed of developments since then.
The chief executive officer of the North Eastern Health Board took immediate steps to deal with the situation as soon as he became aware of it and the board initiated a review which was carried out by experts nominated by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The report of the review group has been referred by the board to the Medical Council in the context of its statutory functions as set out in the Medical Practitioners Act, 1978.
I went to Drogheda last July and met many of the women involved and heard their experiences at first hand. The meeting was organised by Patient Focus. I had a further meeting with a group representing the women involved on Tuesday, 24 October 2000. I indicated at that meeting that I felt it would be better to await the outcome of the Medical Council's deliberations before deciding on any further action that might be required in this case. I intend to keep the matter under active review.
Would the Minister accept that what we are talking about here is an extremely serious matter? The issue relates to what can only be described as systematic unnecessary mutilation of women of child-bearing age. There may be as many as 90 women who had this experience and certainly the practice went back at least 21 years. Would the Minister accept that while we all understand that the health board acted swiftly once it was notified, the reality is that this practice was continuing, in effect, practically on a daily basis and yet nobody blew the whistle until two young nurses could take it no longer? As the Minister responsible for the management and care of patients, surely his duty must be to ensure, first, that it will not happen again to any patient but, second, that the truth be told.
Would he accept that it is not solely the responsibility of the Medical Council? The Medical Council has statutory responsibility in terms of professional practice and it is proceeding on that basis relating to one professional, but we are talking about a hospital which failed its patients and about a system which destroyed the possibility for many women to bear more children.
It is an extremely serious situation. Surely the Minister would recognise that he must make a commitment now that the truth will be told, that there will be a tribunal of inquiry and that there will be an assessment carried out of the history of these women. As Minister for Health and Children, he also has a duty to set in place systems throughout the country to monitor and assess what consultants are doing. We can no longer accept that somehow a consultant cannot make a mistake, cannot become mentally ill, and cannot do things which are unacceptable and which are a danger to his patient in all cases. This has implications for the entire hospital system.
The Deputy should confine herself to questions.
I agree with the Deputy that this is a particularly serious issue and episode. As evidence of my earnestness in this matter and how seriously I regarded it, I took the step to go and meet the women concerned. Clearly the conclusions of the review group of a number of experts from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists give even further rise for concern, namely that 46% of the hysterectomy cases were unacceptable, that a further 12% were doubtful, etc. It also concluded that the protocols and procedures within the hospital were not acceptable and were not on a par with what one would expect across the system, and that the level of interaction and intra-action between the maternity unit of that hospital at the time and the remainder of the hospital was very poor almost to the point of non-existence. Therefore I agree that there are a range of issues which relate to the hospital as well as to the particular individual.
I sought some indication from the Medical Council as to the time frame for its deliberations. My understanding was that it hoped to be in a position to conclude either around the end of February or later, but that is a matter for the Medical Council – we have no control over that.
I am not ruling out an inquiry. I do not want to prejudge the content of that inquiry or make remarks which might appear to prejudge it. I formed a judgment at the time that before I proceed further it seemed logical to wait for the deliberations of the Medical Council which could inform any further action to be taken on this issue.
I ask the Minister to outline his view. He must have some idea of what he intends to do following the completion of the Medical Council's work.
The Medical Council is assessing the fitness of one doctor. The Minister is responsible for the correct management of the hospitals. Surely he has a duty to outline how in intends to deal with the individual cases, even if it is only a general outline in terms of their needs. I appreciate that work has been done by the health board and everybody recognises that, but more must be done.
We must proceed to the next Question, Question No. 23.
I will revert to the Deputy on the matter. I would not rule out anything. I take the points she has made about the broader picture. The women concerned and those representing them have made that very point to me. Clearly what went on relates to more than one individual.
Obviously there is a process here. Clearly we want to establish what happened and the full truth across the hospital, and subsequently make sure lessons are learned for the future and that protocols—
We must proceed to Question No. 23.
