Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A REDRESS SCHEME for symphysiotomy survivors has been introduced, but one group has slammed it as being “flawed”.
Judge Maureen Clark has been appointed as Independent Assessor to the scheme, which is for women who underwent surgical symphysiotomy or pubiotomy. The scheme was announced on 1 July this year.
Participants will receive awards at three levels – €50,000, €100,000 and €150,000.
The Scheme is designed to be simple, straightforward and non-adversarial, and aims to minimise the stress for all the women concerned. Many of the women are elderly and may not want to experience the delay, publicity and financial risks that sometimes come with a court case. Minister Varadkar met all three support groups representing the women last September.
Two patient groups, Patient Focus and SOS Ltd, welcomed the appointment of Judge Clark. These groups said they will be writing to these women “to provide them with the information needed to make this process as easy as possible for them”.
A large number of the women wish to avail of the Scheme. We know this because we talk to them, their family members and their legal advisers on a daily basis.
However, Marie O’Connor from SOS, which represents the majority of women affected, said that it is the “second-worst scheme for victims of abuse in Ireland ever”.
She described the time limits as “draconian” and told Morning Ireland she believes it is procedurally flawed. She said SOS are advising women to consult their legal advisors on the issue, and is advising all of the women to apply for the higher sum of €100,000.
The scheme means that the State does not have to admit liability for wrongdoing.
More than 150 cases are before the high court currently. If the women pursue these cases, they won’t be entitled to the compensation from this specific scheme.
However the scheme says:
Women may opt out of the scheme at any stage if they wish to pursue an action through the courts instead, up to the time of accepting their award. No one will have to waive their right to proceed with a court cases as a pre-condition of applying to the scheme. If they wish, women may obtain legal or professional advice, including financial support, to help in preparing to submit an application to the Payment Scheme, but this is not necessary.
The Irish Council of Civil Liberties has criticised the scheme, saying that it “falls short of meeting Ireland’s international human rights obligations to an ageing population” of symphysiotomy survivors.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How many have died waiting on their rightful redress?
Woman… don’t have that C section.. there’s a more natural way….. Woman… don’t take your life because you have a brain tumour.. there’s a more natural way…. We are the men of the Church… not interested in your suffering… there’s a more natural way
Well put Damien
The whole thing is nightmarish, getting butchered by a doctor so that you could keep having babies for the Church? Absolutely horrific, these women deserve justice.
Don’t be fooled to think the Government have a heart. The Majority Group SOS which represent 98% of the Survivors reject this offer because it will be Ex-Gratia. Which means no-one will be held accountable for the butchery that was preformed on these poor women. NO_ONE!
Correct. It’s a damn disgrace just like the limits put of Catholic Church liability in other cases. Government only knows power not justice.
Was listening in this morning an absolute insult to all those ladies – the judge that is overseeing this ‘scheme’ said of the surgeons that most, if not all have since died …. seemed like there could be one or two still out there – and none of them have to answer for their actions – an absolute disgrace – my heart goes out to all the survivors, I can’t begin to imagine how their lives have been affected. This was a seriously sick, barbaric, attack on helpless women and not to offer an apology.
The stated intention of this redress scheme at the outset was to provide closure to the survivors of symohysiotomy – the proposed redress scheme can not provide closure as it is ex-gratia & therefore does not apportion blame or responsibility for the brutal surgeries performed, without consent, on these pregnant, labouring & post-partum women!
Animals in labour were treated better by vets.
These ladies deserve the highest compensation available.
I’d like to hear from one of the doctors who did perform this procedure asto why it was done and representative from the government as to why it was allowed. The money they are offering is pennies and an insult.
Just wondering if Edna has a spare hour and a half to talk to each of these victims of state butchery. Systematic, state backed crimes against humanity. The perpetrators should be sent to the Hague
@Anne Marie Devlin
Ireland was poor at the time. Therefore, there were not enough resources to ensure that hospitals were safe enough to allow Caesarean sections take place. Doctors honestly believed that symphysiotomy was the right procedure. Therefore, they did not commit a criminal offence. That means that your comparison of symphysiotomy with the crime that was committed against Maíria Cahill (I assume that that is the comparison that you made) is absurd. You should be offering moral support to our doctors, not pillorying them.
I’d say she’s spot on with her analysis Ciaran. You on the other hand haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. It was a criminal act Pure and Simple. No other word for it. And to bring up the name of Mairia Cahill into the debate is low and beyond contempt.
There are cases of post Caesarean symphysiotomy – how can that be justified?
@Bob Moore
I didn’t bring the Maíria Cahill case into this; Anne Marie did. Although Anne Marie didn’t mention Maíria’s name, she said: “Just wondering if Edna has a spare hour and a half to talk to each of these victims of state butchery”. Obviously, that was a reference to Maíria’s case.
By the way, with regard to your allegation that doctors who carried out symphysiotomy are criminals, the DPP would not prosecute because there would be insufficient evidence of intent to cause harm; not to mention the passage of time. For example, the DPP decided not to prosecute Michael Neary for the unnecessary removal of ovaries. Therefore, the presumption of innocence applies. I will not give in to mob mentality.
Ireland was a developing country in the 1950s and symphysiotomy is still being used in developing countries at the recommendation of the World Health Organisation, which is not dominated by Catholic theology.
Oh i get it now you’re an Iona follower of David Quinn. Your opinion deserves derision.
Symphysiotomy was a barbaric practice carried out by missionaries returning to Ireland as a form of birth control, so that more catholic babies could be born. It was banned in developing countries as it was being introduced here in Ireland. So spare me your religious sanctimony.
So you’re saying that what David Quinn wrote isn’t true? I’m not a member of the Iona Institute or any other organisation.
Yes i am saying what Quinn wrote isn’t true and inaccurate. Maybe you should educate yourself with the subject and not listen to a catholic apologist. Here is a good read on the subject.
http://www.evertype.com/books/bodily-harm.html
What proof do you have that David Quinn is lying? Go on! You have let your anti-Christian prejudice blind you.
No amount of money can make this right
Justice for S.O.S!
have your say