Reports only preliminary in nature, say obstetricians

Doctors' defence:The three doctors who prepared reports 1998 exonerating Dr Michael Neary have said that these were were drawn up under strict time constraints and were only preliminary in nature pending a full investigation by the Institute of Obstetricians

Prof Walter Prendiville said he did not think that any of the obstetricians wanted to carry out the review of Dr Neary's practice when asked by the IHCA.

He said that he had been asked to become involved at very short notice. "I understood that there was no time and that . . . we had to provide our report immediately or else injunctions were going to fly and there would be summary suspension," he said.

Prof Prendiville said that when they met Dr Neary he had not been guarded, reserved or suspicious and appeared to be surprised and shocked by the allegations. "He came across as somebody who cared about his patients."

Dr Bernard Stuart said he had been told by Prof Prendiville, that the IHCA was looking for someone to produce a report on the practice of Dr Neary which would be useful in the context of an industrial relations dispute.

He said he saw his role as being to advise the IHCA concerning Dr Neary and that he had not conducted a "peer review" or detailed forensic examination.

Dr Stuart said he and the other obstetricians had spent more than four hours getting some background from Dr Neary and then going through the charts. ". . . he took all the charts with him . . . At the end of the meeting I have to say that I thought that Dr Neary was a good practitioner."

"I think that if I was able to blot out everything that happened since the 6th or 7th November, 1998 and I knew no additional information over what I knew then, I believe that I would reach the same conclusion as I reached at that time under the same circumstances," he said.

Dr John Murphy said he had been reluctant to become involved in the review but agreed after being phoned three times. He said that there was no template for this type of report and that it was "a type of 999 call".

He said that at the meeting with Dr Neary he did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the relevant cases. "I would have to say that this was based on a lot of mutual trust."

Dr Murphy said that Dr Neary's notes were in "rag order" with possibly over a thousand loose pieces of paper.

He said that he told Dr Neary that it would be appropriate to look at the issue in depth and to involve a colleague if he was contemplating another such intervention.