There is no evidence to justify any demonisation or vilification of consultant obstetrician Dr Michael Neary, the Medical Council's fitness to practise committee has found.
This was revealed yesterday when the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, confirmed the council's decision to strike Dr Neary from its register.
The decision was made following an investigation into events at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, where Dr Neary performed a large number of Caesarean hysterectomies.
The judge noted that the circumstances of the case had received considerable publicity.
He said that, in fairness to Dr Neary, he had retired at the end of 1998, indicating he did not intend to resume practice. The committee, while stating that what occurred should simply not have happened, had seen fit to make its finding on demonisation and vilification.
Quoting from the committee's report, Mr Justice Finnegan said it had found the evidence had disclosed a series of profound errors of judgment on Dr Neary's part with very serious consequences for each of his patients.
It had found that "a regrettable absence of insight and objectivity and the non-existence of any mechanism either within the hospital or elsewhere to ensure that such errors as occurred might be corrected, or that a pattern of adverse or unusual outcomes should be properly monitored".
Mr Justice Finnegan said the committee had 15 cases referred to it and, in respect of these, seven allegations of professional misconduct against Dr Neary had been made:
1. That he failed to show and apply the standards of clinical judgment and competence required of a person in his position.
2. That he carried out operations when he knew or ought to have known there were insufficient grounds for them.
3. That he made findings in respect of patients when he knew or ought to have known there were insufficient grounds for them.
4. That he made inaccurate or misleading entries in patients' notes.
5. That he acted in a rude and insensitive manner towards some or all of the patients.
6. That he failed to act in their best interests.
7. That he acted in a manner derogatory to the reputation of the medical profession.
Mr Justice Finnegan said that in respect of three of the patients, the complaint had not been pursued before the committee, and in the case of two of them, a finding of no misconduct had been made.
In the 10 remaining cases, findings covering all seven allegations of misconduct had been made.
"Having considered the papers before me, I make a declaration confirming the decision of the Medical Council and declare accordingly and direct the council to erase the name of [Dr Neary\] from the register," Mr Justice Finnegan said.
He said Dr Neary had not appealed the decision of the Medical Council.
Mr Justice Finnegan added that he was aware there had been some criticism in the media of the length of time taken by the inquiry, which had been initiated after a report had been obtained by the North Eastern Health Board from Dr M. Maresh, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, and from patients of Dr Neary in 1998 and 1999.
He said there had been 37 days of hearings in which evidence had been given by 23 witnesses. Consideration of complex and technical issues and voluminous documentation was involved.
He said the council and its committee deserved to be complimented for their work.
Article 34 of the Constitution required that justice be administered in public and in order to make more efficient use of court time and ease expense it was his practice to read documentation in chambers, he said.
It was his practice, he added, to direct that the documentation be considered as read in open court and made available for inspection to the media who, in these circumstances, acted as a watchdog for the public interest.