Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Sam Boal/Photocall Ireland

Symphysiotomy group calls for claims in redress report to be withdrawn

Last week 399 women who had the procedure were awarded up to €150,000 in compensation – but almost a third of applicants to the scheme were rejected.

A GROUP REPRESENTING women who had symphysiotomy procedures has called on former judge Maureen Harding Clark to withdraw claims made in her report that some women who applied did not have the procedure.

“Harding Clark has made several false allegations in her report that we know are untrue,” said Marie O’Connor, Chairperson of Survivors of Symphysiotomy.

“Her report falsely alleges that leading symphysiotomy campaigners who said they had had a symphysiotomy did not in fact have one. This is utterly false and untrue.

“There are no prominent symphysiotomy campaigners that failed in their application to the scheme. This is one of a number of comments made by the report that is false and untrue,” according to O’Connor.

Campaigning in the past ten years has led to hundreds of women who were subjected to the procedure – which involved cutting the cartilage of a pregnant women’s pelvic bone to widen the birth canal – to come forward to seek an apology and explanation.

Some women opted to seek compensation through legal action against the state – as it promoted this procedure as preferred to a cesarean section long after other jurisdictions had prohibited it. An alternative way of seeking compensation was offered in the form of a redress scheme and report by the HSE, which was released last week.

The scheme awarded 399 women payments of up to €150,000, with the overall amount paid totalling to €34 million.

But almost a third of applications that were submitted to the scheme were refused, as the report outlines:

185 out of almost 600 applicants were unable to establish their claim. All of these applicants were assisted in trying to establish their claims before being declared ineligible/not accepted into the scheme.

The report says that when applications were considered “any doubt was generously applied in an applicant’s favour”, but “that is not to say that all statements and reports were accepted uncritically”.

Many personal recollections reduced to a statement were simply not corroborated by the contemporaneous medical records of the symphysiotomy delivery. Many applicants did not undergo symphysiotomy.

“Many subjective and partisan reports were received but excluded in favour of objective contemporaneous reports. Reports described as medico-legal reports, obtained specifically for the application and which merely repeated an applicant’s uncorroborated claims were afforded little weight.”

On the subject of ‘prominent campaigners’, Clark says she had a “great feeling of sadness” for those who believed they had the procedure but were not awarded the grant:

“I have no doubt that some of them have spent good money presenting their claims which cannot be recouped.

Those who have been active in representing themselves as victims to the media must now retrace their lives and must be understandably upset.

19/9/2014 Survivors of Symphisiotomy Marie O'Connor of Survivors of Symphysiotomy. Mark Stedman / Photocall Ireland Mark Stedman / Photocall Ireland / Photocall Ireland

But O’Connor says that the scheme favours younger applicants to the scheme, where records are better preserved, easier to obtain and doctors are more likely to still be alive to testify that the procedure did occur.

“The scheme’s methods of assessment and the burden of proof it required – a burden that went beyond the burden of proof sought by the courts – made it difficult, if not impossible, for some women to prove their case.

“The scheme demanded absolute certainty, whereas the civil courts seek proof on the balance of probabilities. For unsuccessful women who had no right of appeal, this report has added insult to injury.”

But the report says that it did try to assist women in their application, but “were unable to assist because the application form provided nothing more than a name and address and the name of the hospital where the symphysiotomy was said to have been performed.”

Despite several written reminders and notices posted on the official website, nothing further was furnished and there was no engagement with the Scheme.

“In each case, we carried our enquiries as far as we could but were generally inclined to believe that experience showed the named hospital was unlikely to have carried out any symphysiotomy as claimed. Those applicants were ultimately declared ineligible.”

Reaction

O’Connor says that the document has caused “great anger” among the women who applied for the scheme, and that although “70% of applicants applied successfully to the scheme, the report by innuendo and inference smears all applicants equally”.

However, a separate symphysiotomy survivors’ group Patient Focus welcomed the outcome of the report and thanked Judge Clark “for her forensic approach to the issue and for debunking the more outrageous comments expressed on symphysiotomy”.

In their statement released last week, they both expressed their regret that some women decided to boycott the scheme, and expressed concern over the high number of applications that were deemed false.

“It is worrying that a significant number of women who did not undergo symphysiotomies wrongly believed they did for a prolonged period. Some indeed spoke publicly about their traumatic deliveries which they wrongly believed involved a symphysiotomy.”

Symphysiotomy was carried out on an estimated 1,500 women in Ireland up to the 1980s, long after it was discontinued in other jurisdictions.

Many women were not asked if they wished to have the procedure, and were never told by the hospital nor their GP after the birth either.

Read: State apology: 399 women given up to €150,000 each for symphysiotomy procedures

Read: 5 women due compensation for ‘barbaric and cruel’ childbirth procedure died before receiving it

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
23 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Frank's Cat
    Favourite Frank's Cat
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:26 PM

    Claims copied and pasted. Claims for procedures in hospitals not built yet. Claims for procedures described which could not be symphisiotomy. Aparently you’re not allowed question any of that without offending someone. The only surprise would be if there were no scammers.

    101
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute jane
    Favourite jane
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:44 PM

    There should be consequences for those who’ve tried to defraud the state.

    81
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Fahey
    Favourite Paul Fahey
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:53 PM

    Frank – sounds like you read the Breda O Brien article yesterday.

    12
    See 4 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kal Ipers
    Favourite Kal Ipers
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:54 PM

    They did mention that people didn’t know what procedure was carried out on them and incorrectly thought they had it done to them. There wasn’t fraud, may seem odd but many people would never have been told or thought to ask.

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Boganity
    Favourite Boganity
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 7:01 PM

    Kal your post just about sums up the health care system in Ireland: doctors don’t tell and patients don’t ask.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter McGlynn
    Favourite Peter McGlynn
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 7:06 PM

    Maybe wait and see what happens. There did seem to be a bit of a glossing over of the issue in the press this weekend claim that it was practised in many countries but didn’t name one. Also, even if the practise was safer than a cesarian, in my opinion that the Catholic Church “encouraged, if not insisted upon, symphysiotomies” is not to be ignored.

    That doctors made decisions under influence of their religion rather than wholly on medical grounds is also something that should be recognised as something we don’t want to go back to.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Craba
    Favourite Craba
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 8:33 PM

    @Peter McGlynn: not sure it was glossed over in the papers over the weekend., Breda o’Briens article in the Times and Brenda Power’s in the Sunday Times were fairly forthright in their views. The Judge’s comments were pretty damning.

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Keith Mitchell
    Favourite Keith Mitchell
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:30 PM

    We accept the parts of the report we like and reject whole heartedly the parts we don’t.

    63
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Boganity
    Favourite Boganity
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 6:59 PM

    That’s life

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Jerry Slattery
    Favourite Jerry Slattery
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:31 PM

    This has been another fabulous gravy train for the usual Legal firms who specialize in this type of litigation.
    The unfortunate thing about this is that as the system works on a no foal no fee system .one has has nothing to lose by chancing your arm and having a go on the lottery, all the solicitor firm involved will lose if not successful is a couple of hours work which he will have given over to a young trainee to do on little more than a minimum, wage .

    The state i.e taxpayer’s are left holding a very expensive can again and again .

    52
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Jeremy DeChad
    Favourite Jeremy DeChad
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:45 PM

    @Jerry Slattery: As a tax payer I absolutely object to having to pay for this or any other similar compensation scheme. Some doctor made a decision to do an operation, it is up to the doctor to defend him or herself for any negligence resulting. Fed up being a sucker for every Tom Dick or Harriet who decides to play the system!

    44
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paul Fahey
    Favourite Paul Fahey
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:56 PM

    Jeremy – and of course you (and all of your identities) do not enjoy any criticism linked to the church and may I suggest you read up on vicarious liability.

    13
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Boganity
    Favourite Boganity
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 7:04 PM

    Jeremy you conveniently ignore the fact that you where the doctor’s employer as you’re a taxpayer

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Donal O'Brien
    Favourite Donal O'Brien
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 7:02 PM

    So, why are there two groups, one which accepts the report and the other one objects to it? What is that all about?
    And why should the state pay compo when there is no proof the claimant had the operation?

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Cormac Laffan
    Favourite Cormac Laffan
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 5:27 PM

    Ah lads, some comments on this have to be misinformed.
    Those with pelvic bones torn in two applied, those that couldn’t prove when and where it happened were rejected, it’s fairly self evident.
    Some compassion wouldn’t go astray.

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute leartius
    Favourite leartius
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 5:52 PM

    No surprise really, government have being making victims of abuse jump through hoops for years. Not even a simple apology or even admit that these people are suffering today because of procedures that were outlawed in many countries over a hundred years ago. instead of taking responsible of state sponsored torture, they force these women through a maze of rules dreamed up to weed as many out as possible, if people die without justice its an extra bonus. That is the civil service’s attitude to victims. remember Louise O’Keeffe they drove her to the European courts looking for justice. while they played with taxpayer funds the victim had to put her family home on the line. loosing her case in Ireland highest court, they same state defence that was laughed out of the European court. while our country’s leader parades around Rome like a peacock, these victims march outside our empty parliament. its Monday ladies on Kildare st the privileged start their working week around 2PM on Tuesday.

    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Upowthat Burke
    Favourite Upowthat Burke
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 6:17 PM

    When judges are not political appointments this injustice will stop

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Hupthejaysus
    Favourite Hupthejaysus
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:23 PM

    Keep him alive to face trial. Coward.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Hupthejaysus
    Favourite Hupthejaysus
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:29 PM

    Oops. Wrong article. For Barry Bennell

    10
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mrs M
    Favourite Mrs M
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 4:55 PM

    150K is an insult !

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Shawn O'Ceallaghan
    Favourite Shawn O'Ceallaghan
    Report
    Nov 28th 2016, 6:36 PM

    How much? Is it just about money? Why is redress only solved financial means? The people in charge now were not the ppl in charge then.

    13
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds