Seeking a clear focus on openness

Victims of medical negligence sometimes meet a wall of silence. For the sake of justice, much more openness is required

Victims of medical negligence sometimes meet a wall of silence. For the sake of justice, much more openness is required

WRITING IN The Irish Times Healthpluslast week Dr James Reilly outlined a new approach to compensating the victims of medical negligence. However, unless there is far more openness from the medical profession and fairness from the State Claims Agency, the victims of medical negligence will still be left without justice.

My family lives every day of our lives coping with the devastating effects of medical negligence. My son was born in 1982 and suffered a severe brain injury during birth.

Tragically, his twin was stillborn. We believed that the medial team looking after my wife had made serious mistakes, a fact that was subsequently made clear in court, yet despite repeatedly looking for answers as to what had gone wrong we were met with a wall of silence from the hospital involved.

READ MORE

Every family that has been in this position will understand that we needed our questions to be answered and if a mistake had been made we wanted an apology. It was the least we deserved. However, to get this we had no option but to go down the legal route.

Our case was heard in July 1988, an appeal was heard in April 1989 and a retrial took place later that year. It was a gruelling experience, but it resulted in the full facts of the case being made public.

We could move on with our lives. It also provided a settlement that has helped us to look after our son, now 28, who needs round-the-clock care.

Unfortunately, our experience is not unique. As referred to by Dr James Reilly in his article, a six-year-old girl – Keri Brett – was recently awarded damages as a result of “devastating injuries” at birth. I know Keri’s family feel that without taking this case they would never have received an admission of liability or an apology for the medical mistakes that have so profoundly changed their lives.

This was my belief too, but the fact that nothing has changed in the 20 years since I was in court is depressing.

Everyone accepts that accidents can happen. How we minimise the number of accidents and cope with the aftermath of medical negligence when it occurs should be the main focus of reform.

Unfortunately, in my view, Dr Reilly’s recent article focused almost entirely on compensation without seriously examining these more important issues.

The victims of medical negligence often meet a wall of silence when they are looking for answers. There are numerous examples where medics have refused to be open and honest after making a mistake, and this leaves the victim or their family with only one course of action – to go to court.

The medical profession should have a responsibility to be open and upfront when a mistake is made. The charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) is campaigning for a “duty of candour’’ to be introduced in the UK. This would mean healthcare providers would have a legal requirement to be open with patients or their next of kin when they are harmed through medical intervention. I believe the Irish medical community should be bound by this, too.

I also believe the current approach of the HSE and the State Claims Agency (SCA) – which manages legal cases on behalf of the State – does not reflect these requirements. In my opinion, the SCA often denies responsibility for medical mistakes and takes action to delay cases being resolved. In many cases, even where it is clear that serious mistakes have been made, families have been forced to spend years fighting for access to documents, answers, apologies and settlements.

Faced with a system that works against them, I believe that is vitally important that the victim has independent legal advice of their own. I know this from my own experience, and I know many individuals and families who share this view.

Of course, the long fight for justice drives legal costs up. But when faced with a medical profession that will not always give clear answers and an SCA that is given to denying responsibility when accidents occur, what other option does the family or individual have?

I was a member of a Department of Health and Children committee which was established to examine medical negligence and compensation issues.

Just as this committee was preparing to finalise a report its last scheduled meeting in May 2008 was cancelled. The committee has not been brought together since, and this is a great disappointment both to myself and other committee members.

Examining the way we compensate the victims of medical negligence is well and good. However, to try to limit access to independent legal advice will only harm the victims of medical negligence. And, to attempt this without introducing openness into the way medical accidents are handled by the medical profession and the SCA would be deeply unjust and unfair.

  • Willie Dunne and his wife Kay live in Wicklow town, Co Wicklow – their son William (28) lives at home with them. William was born on March 20th, 1982. He suffered a significant brain injury during labour and following birth developed spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. His twin brother was stillborn.
  • William Dunne's case was heard at the High Court in 1988 for 15 days, at the Supreme Court in 1989 for 13 days and again at the High Court in 1989 following the ordering of a retrial. On the 16th day of the retrial the action was settled. Judgment was given against the hospital.