More Irish abuse.. and not even the church this time

My name is URL · 19-02-2010 11:45PM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

This procedure was done to allow for safe delivery of babies in the context of it being unsafe to perform a C-section. It is still, apparently, done in countries where it is not safe to do a C-section (2nd/3rd world).

This took place 28 years ago.

There is nothing to be gained from an inquiry.

It was done without consent.. that alone warrants an inquiry. At the very least there should be a redress for the women affected

The fact that Harney has the face to say that an inquiry would not be productive says what exactly about the medical profession in Ireland and particularly in the Lourdes hospital? I mean c'mon, if this was the first scandal to arise from there then maybe it could be swept aside as an isolated problem, but it's in a long list of scandals and I'm sure more will probably arise too... unless something is done

Ihaveanopinion · 19-02-2010 11:48PM

The notion of informed consent is a recent event. This was no the standard in 1982 or before.

Nothing done back in the early 80s was done with informed consent as we know it today. You are judging 28 years ago by todays standard. That is not appropriate.

on the note of 'something has to be done', many things have been done. Practices have long changed. This procedure is no longer done and has not been done for 28 years!! What exactly would you like to achieve with an inquiry???

The doctor who performed most of these procedures is dead along with most of the administration involved at the time

Biggins · 19-02-2010 11:50PM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

again -- in context - 28 years ago.

an inquiry would cost a lot of money - take a lot of time - and would result in no change in practices because practices have changed a long time ago.

However those that were mistreated still have to live with the suffering and pain.
Do they not deserve at to see that a review is carried out and lessons can be learned for the future, for at least their and our children?

That further safeguards are effective and put in place - and not just for this hospital.

walshb · 19-02-2010 11:52PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How does a medical procedure have ANYTHING to do with the catholic church? Seriously, they aren't the cause of ALL of Irelands problems despite what you might want to think.

Hey, very very little went on in this country without some Catholic Church
influence. The Lourdes is and was a ****ing hell hole. Butchers.

Wasn't it nice to see Neary looking ever so fresh. That scumbag should be in jail.

Ihaveanopinion · 19-02-2010 11:52PM

Treatment is available to anyone with problem. All Irish people are entitled to free medical care in the Irish healthcare system.

What lessons? This practice isn't done anymore...

oppenheimer1 · 19-02-2010 11:54PM

My name is URL wrote: »

It was done without consent.. that alone warrants an inquiry. At the very least there should be a redress for the women affected

The fact that Harney has the face to say that an inquiry would not be productive says what exactly about the medical profession in Ireland and particularly in the Lourdes hospital? I mean c'mon, if this was the first scandal to arise from there then maybe it could be swept aside as an isolated problem, but it's in a long list of scandals and I'm sure more will probably arise too... unless something is done

If the women in question feel they have a case they can take both the hospitals and the ob-gyn to court in a civil case.

The last case was 28 years ago I have to ask the question why now? One must assume these women have been suffering for years

pookie82 · 19-02-2010 11:56PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the women in question feel they have a case they can take both the hospitals and the ob-gyn to court in a civil case.

The last case was 28 years ago I have to ask the question why now? One must assume these women have been suffering for years

I did hear about these cases before, this isn't the first time it's been in the press by any stretch.

The Prime Time special just reignited the public's horror and the affected women's quest for justice.

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:00AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

What lessons? This practice isn't done any more...

Lessons that involve other treatments that might be found to be causing pain and suffering, How they can be stopped? What safeguards are there to stop them?
How a patient can maintain/regain their rights to what is being done to them while awake or under an anaesthetic ...just to begin with.

And we still haven't addressed the suffering, pain and re-dressing to the actual inflicted.
If its let go as an issue, what are we saying? If time drags on long enough, you can get away with anything?

I debated if to mention this or not but on reflection though it might help things if I did.

I have a brother (older) that was born in the Drogheda hospital.
During the birthing procedure of him, something went wrong and the staff managed to allow the cord to wrap around his neck and starve him of oxygen to the brain.
long story short, today he has severe brain damage, suffers daily from gran-mal seizures and is totally dependent on the rest of the family for even basic things like feeding etc.
Why didn't the ma and da sue at the time? Thats a question I often asked over the latter years - and the reply was always basically the same thing - it wasn't the done thing at the time, the doc were treated like gods and anyone that challenged them or the hospital was shunned to one side, stigmatised and treated like dirt.

Its because of that terrible attitude that these things that went on before are only NOW coming to light.

Denerick · 20-02-2010 12:01AM

Delete

oppenheimer1 · 20-02-2010 12:01AM

pookie82 wrote: »

I did hear about these cases before, this isn't the first time it's been in the press by any stretch.

The Prime Time special just reignited the public's horror and the affected women's quest for justice.

That answers my second question but it still doesn't explain the lack of court cases. All women affected can take a case for redress if they so desire. An inquiry would be a waste of time as it wouldn't have any recommendations for change to make as practices changed a long time ago.

In other words, nothing would be learned.

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:04AM

Biggins wrote: »

Lessons that involve other treatments that might be found to be causing pain and suffering, How they can be stopped? What safeguards are there to stop them?
How a patient can maintain/regain their rights to what is being done to them while awake or under an anaesthetic ...just to begin with.

And we still haven't addressed the suffering, pain and re-dressing to the actual inflicted.
If its let go as an issue, what are we saying? If time drags on long enough, you can get away with anything?

Ok - In todays modern medical practice, all patients have to give informed consent before undergoing any procedure. If something gets done to you without consent, you can sue - unless its an emergency. Thats your first concern addressed

The suffering/pain etc etc - all patients are entitled to free care under the Irish healthcare system.

In terms of time, the Statute of Limitations for Medical Negligence is two years. HOWEVER, that wasnt negligent 28 years ago. It would be now.

I'll say it one more time - 28 years - medical practice has changed considerable since

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:09AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

I'll say it one more time - 28 years - medical practice has changed considerable since

...but a lot of attitudes of those still in charge haven't!
Again, yet another issue that needs to be addressed.

MaybeLogic · 20-02-2010 12:09AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

In terms of time, the Statute of Limitations for Medical Negligence is two years. HOWEVER, that wasnt negligent 28 years ago. It would be now.

I'll say it one more time - 28 years - medical practice has changed considerable since

The women fully deserve a hearing and compensation and, to be frank, if it's a further nail in the coffin of the pernicious influence of Catholic Ireland, so be it.

My name is URL · 20-02-2010 12:10AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That answers my second question but it still doesn't explain the lack of court cases. All women affected can take a case for redress if they so desire. An inquiry would be a waste of time as it wouldn't have any recommendations for change to make as practices changed a long time ago.

In other words, nothing would be learned.

Just because practices have changed doesn't mean that the victims don't deserve an explanation as to how & why it happened, and happened so prominently in one particular hospital.

As I said before, this case is one in a long line of questionable practices that took place in the Lourdes. Surely there needs to be a thorough investigation into how so many scandals have taken place in that hospital.

Neary's last non-consenual womb removal was in '98 afaik.. that's by no means a different time with different protocols in place.. patient records have disappeared from the hospital in some cases too.

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:12AM

MaybeLogic wrote: »

The women fully deserve a hearing and compensation and, to be frank, if it's a further nail in the coffin of the pernicious influence of Catholic Ireland, so be it.

I'm afraid you can't attack the Church for 'compensation'.

If they want to take a case, the civil courts are open to them. If they are successful, they will win costs and it wont cost them anything.

It would be a waste of public money for an independant inquiry

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:12AM

My name is URL wrote: »

...patient records have disappeared from the hospital in some cases too.

...By co-incidence :rolleyes:, including my brothers!

20-02-2010 12:12AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

Ok - In todays modern medical practice, all patients have to give informed consent before undergoing any procedure. If something gets done to you without consent, you can sue - unless its an emergency. Thats your first concern addressed

There was an article recently (I can't remember which paper it was in, I have it in work). Which reported that women undergoing gynecological examinations under anaesthetia were, in alot of cases, being examined by a student doctor/nurse while anaesthetised, without giving their consent, this was carrying on until very recently (as in last year). So what you state above should be true by law, but it isn't always the reality.

MaybeLogic · 20-02-2010 12:13AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

I'm afraid you can't attack the Church for 'compensation'.

If they want to take a case, the civil courts are open to them. If they are successful, they will win costs and it wont cost them anything.

It would be a waste of public money for an independant inquiry

I didn't mean they should get compo from the Church.

I don't believe it's a waste of money bringing these things to light if it helps to prevent future abuses

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:13AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Just because practices have changed doesn't mean that the victims don't deserve an explanation as to how & why it happened, and happened so prominently in one particular hospital.

As I said before, this case is one in a long line of questionable practices that took place in the Lourdes. Surely there needs to be a thorough investigation into how so many scandals have taken place in that hospital.

Neary's last non-consenual womb removal was in '98 afaik.. that's by no means a different time with different protocols in place.. patient records have disappeared from the hospital in some cases too.

28 years ago - most of the relevent people are dead!

Neary's thing has already been examined.

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:15AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There was an article recently (I can't remember which paper it was in, I have it in work). Which reported that women undergoing gynecological examinations under anaesthetia were, in alot of cases, being examined by a student doctor/nurse while anaesthetised, without giving their consent, this was carrying on until very recently (as in last year). So what you state above should be true by law, but it isn't always the reality.

An examination doesn't require written informed consent. It requires the patient to submit to the examination - implied consent.

If you don't want to be examined by a nurse or by a doctor in training, it is your right not to be examined by them. BUT the patient has to take a bit of responsibility - ask who is examining you and if you have a problem with it say so!

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:16AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

28 years ago - most of the relevant people are dead!

Say WHAT!!!
A lot of the victims are STILL alive and still suffering in Drogheda and beyond.
...or are they just irrelevant?

My name is URL · 20-02-2010 12:17AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

28 years ago - most of the relevent people are dead!

Neary's thing has already been examined.

I know, so you keep saying! I don't know anything about medico-legal stuff at all.. but is it really that impossible for a retrospective investigation to take place in order to find out how things like this came to be in the first place?

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:19AM

Biggins wrote: »

Say WHAT!!!
A lot of the victims are STILL alive and still suffering in Drogheda and beyond.
...or are they just irrelevant?

Not what I meant - and you know it

If you want to ask the doctors/nurses/administrators questions - you will have a lot of problems getting them!

Of course these patients are still alive - dont get me wrong - I sympathise with their problems. HOWEVER, if they have problems, treatment is available for them.

20-02-2010 12:20AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

An examination doesn't require written informed consent. It requires the patient to submit to the examination - implied consent.

If you don't want to be examined by a nurse or by a doctor in training, it is your right not to be examined by them. BUT the patient has to take a bit of responsibility - ask who is examining you and if you have a problem with it say so!

Actually that was proven not to be the case. Implied consent applies to your gynecologist. What was happening in these cases was the trainees were coming in to have a poke around after the examination and use your body as a piece of training equipment without you ever knowing. It was found to be against the law and you now have to be asked in advance of such a situation for your consent in writing.

How can a patient take responsibility here? By asking in advance if anyone else is going to stick their hand up their vagina to see how it feels?

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:20AM

...and we haven't even discussed Dr Seery's questionable antics yet either in the same hospital and the veil of silence!
Staffed by the same people, run by the same organisations and it seems non-answerable to the same masters of state!

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:21AM

My name is URL wrote: »

I know, so you keep saying! I don't know anything about medico-legal stuff at all.. but is it really that impossible for a retrospective investigation to take place in order to find out how things like this came to be in the first place?

If you look up wiki about symphysiotomies, you will see that this was the standard of care up to a point. Then C-sections became safer. The doctors at the time would have trained with C-sections were not safe (initially).

The history of medicine is filled with treatments that were acceptable at the time and subsequently have been proven to be unacceptable/unsafe - etc. They were done in good faith at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20

Ihaveanopinion · 20-02-2010 12:23AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually that was proven not to be the case. Implied consent applies to your gynecologist. What was happening in these cases was the trainees were coming in to have a poke around after the examination and use your body as a piece of training equipment without you ever knowing. It was found to be against the law and you now have to be asked in advance of such a situation for your consent in writing.

How can a patient take responsibility here? By asking in advance if anyone else is going to stick their hand up their vagina to see how it feels?

You are incorrect there. Medical students exam patients everyday in hospitals as part of their training - as do trainee doctors (junior doctors). You are not required to get written consent for an examination. Verbal consent - sure.

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

Biggins · 20-02-2010 12:25AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

...if they have problems, treatment is available for them.

Treatment is not just about sticking a plaster on a cut so to speak, its about answers, consoling and seeking the reply to the question, how did this be allowed come about in the first place!
Treatment is also about seeking some form of peace of mind, justice and knowing that lessons are being learned by reviewing the whole mess.

oppenheimer1 · 20-02-2010 12:28AM

Biggins wrote: »

Treatment is not just about sticking a plaster on a cut so to speak, its about answers, consoling and seeking the reply to the question, how did this be allowed come about in the first place!
Treatment is also about seeking some form of peace of mind, justice and knowing that lessons are being learned by reviewing the whole mess.

But the practice is no longer used, so there are no lessons to be learned

20-02-2010 12:28AM

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

You are incorrect there. Medical students exam patients everyday in hospitals as part of their training - as do trainee doctors (junior doctors). You are not required to get written consent for an examination. Verbal consent - sure.

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

A minute ago you were saying that you didn't need consent at all - only implied consent - now you need verbal? Which is it?

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

Obviously. But why would any person expect that when they consent to being put under general anaesthetic and consent to an examination by their own consultant, to be also consenting to anyone the consultant so chooses to practice on your body? You couldn't possibly expect that unless you are advised.

More Irish abuse.. and not even the church this time

Comments