I accept that. Almost all of these operations were grossly negligent because they were carried out in preference to a much safer standard procedure, the caesarean section. Many women experienced a lifetime of ill-health and physical and psychological pain, suffering and disability that was so multifaceted that the surgery constituted a form of institutional abuse. It breached constitutional, human and other rights. Justice demands the lifting of the Statute of Limitations for a one-year period to enable survivors to begin to access redress through the courts. In many cases, the date of knowledge, which is the yardstick by which eligibility is measured under the statute, presents particular difficulties. There is also the problem of delay. All operations go back at least 25 years and up to 62 years. These were covert operations and three, four and five decades elapsed before women learned through the media that they had been subject to the operation.
These were involuntary operations and there was no question of informed consent. Not one such case has ever been reported to our organisation. Women were not informed prior to surgery and the masking of the surgery continued after the operation. Nearly every woman was discharged from hospital not knowing that her pelvis had been broken.
After women left hospital, it was difficult for them to discover what happened because medical practitioners they consulted for a range of problems were reluctant to address the matter. These problems ranged from bowel and bladder injuries, walking difficulties, incontinence, organ prolapse, neurological disorders, chronic pain and mental health issues. History shows these aberrant operations were hidden from public view until 1999, when they were revealed by the work of the historian Dr. Jacqueline Morrissey, who studied the relationship between the Catholic beliefs and clinical practice in obstetrics and gynaecology in Ireland. The dissemination of knowledge depended on the media and it was haphazard and uncertain. Depending on whether people read the Irish Examiner or saw something in the Evening Herald, survivors may not have been aware of the surgery.
The Statute of Limitations was lifted in Ireland in 2000 for victims of institutional sexual abuse. There are close parallels between survivors of symphysiotomy and victims of residential abuse. The majority of women were having their first child in hospital and their innocence was abused by doctors in whom they placed their trust at a time in their lives when they were most vulnerable. These were involuntary operations and they were carried out on women at the height of labour or under general anaesthetic, which serves to underline their abusive character. In no case was informed consent obtained prior to surgery. The deceptions wrought upon women were occasionally shameful. Some women were told, fraudulently, before being brought to the theatre that they were about to have a caesarean section. Consultant obstetricians, often in Dublin, told patients that they were going to stretch the pelvis or that they were going to give them a bit of help. The psychology of abuse is also relevant to these cases. Psychological abuse was one of the grounds cited for lifting the Statute of Limitations for survivors of sexual abuse.
Survivors of symphysiotomy are extremely vulnerable to procedural argument over delay. We have already seen that in the case of Kearney v. McQuillan. The case was dismissed in the High Court for a period of time on the grounds of delay. It is possible that all of these cases could be dismissed on such grounds. If that were to happen, we submit it would be a travesty. The dangers with time-based and procedural arguments about limitations is that they take up an enormous amount of the time and resources of the courts. Such resources would be better employed discussing the substantive issues.
The temporary lifting of the Statute of Limitations would ensure survivors' access to the courts, at least to enable them to get cases off the starting blocks. It would also serve as a signal from the Legislature that these cases should, at a minimum, be allowed to get off first base. I emphasise the urgency of these cases. If the statute is not amended, there is a grave danger many of our members will go to their graves without seeing justice. Some 1,300 women have already done so in this country. Less than 200 women survive so there is no question of opening the floodgates. Many of our members are in their 70s and 80s and delays will prove fatal. Justice delayed is justice denied.
