Rotunda says age disclosure would have implications

A CHALLENGE by the Rotunda Hospital to the Information Commissioner’s decision requiring it to give an elderly man the age of his birth mother will have major implications for people either adopted informally or reared in institutions, the Supreme Court has heard.

The man for whom the information was sought was aged 86 and has since died.

He was “boarded out” at various addresses in the Dublin area immediately after his birth in 1922 to an unmarried woman. His father was not named on his birth and baptismal certificates.

The man’s daughter had been in touch with the hospital since 1989 seeking information about his birth mother, her grandmother, stating it was not possible to trace her without it. In 2004, she was told the hospital could not, because of prohibitions on disclosure of “personal information” in the Freedom of Information Act, disclose the woman’s age.

The hospital also indicated it had information about the birth mother’s own wishes to the effect that the man had been turned away in the 1930s from a house in the area where the birth mother had an address.

Gerard Hogan SC, for the hospital, yesterday asked the Chief Justice to give priority to its appeal against a High Court decision upholding the Commissioner’s ruling in circumstances where many people seeking similar information were very old.

Many people seeking such information were brought up in humble circumstances, reared in institutions or informally adopted, and had little or no information about their parents and wanted to find out about their origins, he said.

Nuala Butler SC, for the Commissioner, supported the application for a priority hearing.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said there were enormous pressures on the Supreme Court list but, given the circumstances, the court would give the appeal priority. However, it was unlikely it would be heard this year.

In the Rotunda Hospital case, the information held by the hospital included a name and address for the elderly man’s mother, and the date of his birth and Baptism.

The Commissioner ruled the man was entitled to the information on grounds the age of a person was personal information in the public domain, there was evidence he was the woman’s son and there was a strong public interest in people having the fullest possible information on their origins.

In opposing the decision, the hospital referred to ordinary ethical requirements for confidentiality imposed on hospitals.

It said all information given to a patient should enjoy absolute confidentiality, whether it was required for therapeutic purposes or otherwise, and this was of special importance in the case of crisis pregnancies.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy noted there was never any provision in law here for absolute confidentiality over information passing between a doctor and patient, and stressed he was dealing with a claim for confidentiality within the terms of the Freedom of Information Acts.

He found the hospital could not retain a reasonable doubt that the woman was the man’s mother and could not withhold the information on that ground.

The judge upheld the Commissioner’s view that the mother’s age was not confidential personal information, disclosure of which was prohibited under the FOI, as it was already available through the General Registration Office. He ruled the woman’s age was information which also related to her son.