ONE OF the key recommendations of recent reports on improving patient safety in the health service is for doctors and other healthcare professionals to learn to openly acknowledge mistakes when they occur. Offering a sincere apology is rated as highly important by those affected by clinical mistakes, an approach which contrasts with past rigid legal advice to admit nothing while avoiding unnecessary discussion of the incident. How ironic then that Minister for Health Mary Harney, a vocal advocate for greater patient safety, should seek to use legal arguments to avoid dealing fairly and openly with survivors of thalidomide.
By not meeting them to clarify important aspects of a settlement prior to announcing a compensation package this week; by relying on the State Claims Agency to calculate the package in a “take it or leave it” manner; and by insisting there is no legal obligation on the State in the matter, she has added unnecessary insult to the 32 victims of thalidomide and their families. But it is her continued failure to offer a full government apology to victims that is most difficult to understand.
Thalidomide survivors are the sons and daughters of mothers prescribed the morning sickness medication while pregnant. The drug was withdrawn from use after it was linked to birth deformities in the offspring of mothers who had taken thalidomide while pregnant. Thalidomide caused severe foetal damage by preventing the growth of new blood vessels at a critical period in the babies’ development; the most obvious effects were absent or foreshortened limbs, but childrens’ vision and hearing was also affected while others sustained damage to internal organs.
Not expected to live long, survivors have pushed themselves beyond the immediate limitations imposed by their disabilities. Now, however, many are in constant pain, while others require joint replacement surgery. Some need assistance in modifying their environment to continue living independently.
In claiming there is no legal obligation to offer redress, Ms Harney may find her grounds for reaching this conclusion are less than secure: thalidomide was approved for use here by the State; its withdrawal from use was haphazardly carried out so that thalidomide continued to be used by pregnant women well after the date of official market suspension; and many women obtained the drug over the counter, making it difficult to track those affected. But it is the absence of High Court approval for an original settlement package involving minors that appears likely to undermine the State’s view that the 1975 compensation package is legally valid.
Thalidomide survivors can reasonably point to the disparity between their treatment and the victims of contaminated blood products who became infected with the hepatitis C and HIV viruses. Their claims were dealt with by the Lindsay tribunal in a way that ensured a clear legal entitlement to medical care and rehabilitation equipment and advice. It is past time for the Government to formally say sorry to thalidomide victims and to work with them to agree fair compensation.