More Irish abuse.. and not even the church this time

Biggins

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

28 years ago - most of the relevant people are dead!

Say WHAT!!!
A lot of the victims are STILL alive and still suffering in Drogheda and beyond.
...or are they just irrelevant?

My name is URL

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

28 years ago - most of the relevent people are dead!

Neary's thing has already been examined.

I know, so you keep saying! I don't know anything about medico-legal stuff at all.. but is it really that impossible for a retrospective investigation to take place in order to find out how things like this came to be in the first place?

Ihaveanopinion

Biggins wrote: »

Say WHAT!!!
A lot of the victims are STILL alive and still suffering in Drogheda and beyond.
...or are they just irrelevant?

Not what I meant - and you know it

If you want to ask the doctors/nurses/administrators questions - you will have a lot of problems getting them!

Of course these patients are still alive - dont get me wrong - I sympathise with their problems. HOWEVER, if they have problems, treatment is available for them.

Ihaveanopinion

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

An examination doesn't require written informed consent. It requires the patient to submit to the examination - implied consent.

If you don't want to be examined by a nurse or by a doctor in training, it is your right not to be examined by them. BUT the patient has to take a bit of responsibility - ask who is examining you and if you have a problem with it say so!

Actually that was proven not to be the case. Implied consent applies to your gynecologist. What was happening in these cases was the trainees were coming in to have a poke around after the examination and use your body as a piece of training equipment without you ever knowing. It was found to be against the law and you now have to be asked in advance of such a situation for your consent in writing.

How can a patient take responsibility here? By asking in advance if anyone else is going to stick their hand up their vagina to see how it feels?

Biggins

...and we haven't even discussed Dr Seery's questionable antics yet either in the same hospital and the veil of silence!
Staffed by the same people, run by the same organisations and it seems non-answerable to the same masters of state!

Ihaveanopinion

My name is URL wrote: »

I know, so you keep saying! I don't know anything about medico-legal stuff at all.. but is it really that impossible for a retrospective investigation to take place in order to find out how things like this came to be in the first place?

If you look up wiki about symphysiotomies, you will see that this was the standard of care up to a point. Then C-sections became safer. The doctors at the time would have trained with C-sections were not safe (initially).

The history of medicine is filled with treatments that were acceptable at the time and subsequently have been proven to be unacceptable/unsafe - etc. They were done in good faith at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20

Ihaveanopinion

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually that was proven not to be the case. Implied consent applies to your gynecologist. What was happening in these cases was the trainees were coming in to have a poke around after the examination and use your body as a piece of training equipment without you ever knowing. It was found to be against the law and you now have to be asked in advance of such a situation for your consent in writing.

How can a patient take responsibility here? By asking in advance if anyone else is going to stick their hand up their vagina to see how it feels?

You are incorrect there. Medical students exam patients everyday in hospitals as part of their training - as do trainee doctors (junior doctors). You are not required to get written consent for an examination. Verbal consent - sure.

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

Biggins

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

...if they have problems, treatment is available for them.

Treatment is not just about sticking a plaster on a cut so to speak, its about answers, consoling and seeking the reply to the question, how did this be allowed come about in the first place!
Treatment is also about seeking some form of peace of mind, justice and knowing that lessons are being learned by reviewing the whole mess.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

Treatment is not just about sticking a plaster on a cut so to speak, its about answers, consoling and seeking the reply to the question, how did this be allowed come about in the first place!
Treatment is also about seeking some form of peace of mind, justice and knowing that lessons are being learned by reviewing the whole mess.

But the practice is no longer used, so there are no lessons to be learned

Ihaveanopinion

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

You are incorrect there. Medical students exam patients everyday in hospitals as part of their training - as do trainee doctors (junior doctors). You are not required to get written consent for an examination. Verbal consent - sure.

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

A minute ago you were saying that you didn't need consent at all - only implied consent - now you need verbal? Which is it?

Yes - if its your vagina, you can assert your right as to who examines it

Obviously. But why would any person expect that when they consent to being put under general anaesthetic and consent to an examination by their own consultant, to be also consenting to anyone the consultant so chooses to practice on your body? You couldn't possibly expect that unless you are advised.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But the practice is no longer used, so there are no lessons to be learned

...in your opinion.
Others think different - including the victims of this hospital.
You will have to agree to disagree with them.

MaybeLogic

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But the practice is no longer used, so there are no lessons to be learned

It apperars to me that the question may involve the influence of the Cathcolic Church in maintaining a practise that was discontinued, according to the RTE report, decades in earlier in other developed countries, and the pain and discomfort caused to the patients thereby.
It's not a very professional approach by a government agency and desrves examination, imo.

My name is URL

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

If you look up wiki about symphysiotomies, you will see that this was the standard of care up to a point. Then C-sections became safer. The doctors at the time would have trained with C-sections were not safe (initially).

The history of medicine is filled with treatments that were acceptable at the time and subsequently have been proven to be unacceptable/unsafe - etc. They were done in good faith at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20

I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to argue in depth with you tbh.. I'm guessing you may be a Doctor or employed in the health sector. But that Wiki page you mention also has a link to this article *free registration required

it includes the following paragraph -

The researcher uncovered a letter from Dr Alex Spain, a doctor who performed many of the procedures, which said that caesarean sections were perfectly safe but that it would be a long time before such a method of delivery were accepted by the profession because acceptance would lead to "contraception, the mutilating operation of sterilisation, and marital difficulty."

Fluffybums

My understanding of the problem is that the procedure was regarded as safer than a section many years ago but that in most modern countries the practice was discontinued a long time before it was discontinued here.

The focus of any inquiry would be why Symphysiotomy was still being carried long after common practice in modern countries was to use ceasarian as it was considered safer.

Whilst most of the doctors involved will have retired or may be dead, they will have been involved in the training of practicing doctors and as such their attitudes may have been passed on. If general opinion in modern medical systems had moved away from Symphysiotomy and the published data favoured ceasarian, the concern is that the medical profession in Ireland, or at least in some sections, was not abreast of this information or chose to ignore it.

Biggins

Fluffybums wrote: »

My understanding of the problem is that the procedure was regarded as safer than a section many years ago but that in most modern countries the practice was discontinued a long time before it was discontinued here.

The focus of any inquiry would be why Symphysiotomy was still being carried long after common practice in modern countries was to use ceasarian as it was considered safer.

Whilst most of the doctors involved will have retired or may be dead, they will have been involved in the training of practicing doctors and as such their attitudes may have been passed on. If general opinion in modern medical systems had moved away from Symphysiotomy and the published data favoured ceasarian, the concern is that the medical profession in Ireland, or at least in some sections, was not abreast of this information or chose to ignore it.

Well put and better than I ever could. Heart-felt thank you.

MaybeLogic

Fluffybums wrote: »

My understanding of the problem is that the procedure was regarded as safer than a section many years ago but that in most modern countries the practice was discontinued a long time before it was discontinued here.

The focus of any inquiry would be why Symphysiotomy was still being carried long after common practice in modern countries was to use ceasarian as it was considered safer.

Whilst most of the doctors involved will have retired or may be dead, they will have been involved in the training of practicing doctors and as such their attitudes may have been passed on. If general opinion in modern medical systems had moved away from Symphysiotomy and the published data favoured ceasarian, the concern is that the medical profession in Ireland, or at least in some sections, was not abreast of this information or chose to ignore it.

But, again according to the report, though the practise was discontinued in most maternity units in the 60's, it continued at Lourdes till 1983.
Why?

Biggins

MaybeLogic wrote: »

But, again according to the report, though the practise was discontinued in most maternity units in the 60's, it continued at Lourdes till 1983.
Why?

Thats a question many are asking still but our government "of the people" has refused to allow an answer to be given - or even the question to be raised!
Terrible.

Pittens

If the procedure was considered safe at the time, there is little or no issue here. I am sure that C-Sections cause some distress in certain situations too. OK, lets investigate it. But without the IT WAS PATRIARcHICAL IRISHNESS hysteria.

One of the problems I have with all these debates is that it is merely a form of triumphal modernism. Its the past. Get over it.

I have a lot of problems with modern medical practive, not least the over-perscription of anti-depressents and the treatment of normal childish behaviour as aberrant - ADHD.

Maybe future generations will feel smug and superior to us because we drug kids who are over-active , maybe they wont. Maybe they will be worse.

The whole thing reeks of sanctimonious self regard of the modern to the past - lets look to what is happening now, what might be considered normal now and be considered barbarous in the future.

aDeener

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe not directly the church. But to stop the "temptation of using contraception" you can see that it has alot to do with them.

It's absolutely beyond horrific what happened to these women and that stupid see you next tuesday of a woman won't do anything to get answers. Are we really surprised?

oh ffs that is ****ing ridiculous :rolleyes:
is there any topic these days that the church cant be brought into?
this takes things to a new level

Biggins

Pittens wrote: »

...The whole thing reeks of sanctimonious self regard of the modern to the past - lets look to what is happening now, what might be considered normal now and be considered barbarous in the future.

The first part to just above is your thoughts and thats fair enough. Its an opinion.
As for "...what is happening now, what might be considered normal now and be considered barbarous in the future"
- only by learning from studying, reviewing and lessons then taught can it be easier to distinguish when we are presently going wrong and quickly see such errors are corrected right away.
We should be proactive - not always "reacting" to events but with a proactive review of how such events come about, recognise the signs, we can stop any future rot now, and not have it creep up behind us in the future to again haunt us.
...just my thoughts for what its worth. I'm very open to be wrong.

pookie82

Pittens wrote: »

If the procedure was considered safe at the time, there is little or no issue here.

But the entire problem here is that it was considered outdated and dangerous, with better and safer options available (c-section), at the time of many of these operations. I don't understand why people keep saying oh forget about it, hindsight is 20-20 etc. If we were to complain about every seemingly "barbaric" medical procedure from years ago we'd be here all night. That's not what we're doing though. The discontent results from the continued use of this outdated and needlessly dangerous procedure years after a safer option had become available (possibly influenced by the church - but that's a whole other argument).

It seems to me that it could be compared to someone removing an appendix with no anaesthetic in 1980. Yes operations were carried out without anaesthetic to save lives way back when, and now that we look back we think it's awful, but they had no alternatives at the time. The real question here is not "why were these practices used" it's "why were these practices still employed at a time when other safer methods were available"?

Unless I'm missing something.

My name is URL

aDeener wrote: »

oh ffs that is ****ing ridiculous :rolleyes:
is there any topic these days that the church cant be brought into?
this takes things to a new level

It does seem to be an associated factor in why the decision to carry on using this method was made though tbh

from a letter by the doctor that carried out many of the op's -

caesarean sections were perfectly safe but that it would be a long time before such a method of delivery were accepted by the profession because acceptance would lead to contraception, the mutilating operation of sterilisation, and marital difficulty.

Doctors shouldn't concern themselves with the marital lives of patients at all.. it's a faith based idea that made them chose to carry on with this method over the safer alternative

pookie82

aDeener wrote: »

oh ffs that is ****ing ridiculous :rolleyes:
is there any topic these days that the church cant be brought into?
this takes things to a new level

No one is trying to be sensationalist for the sake of it. Even the thread title reads "and not even the church this time". But if you read into this whole sorry story you'll see the Catholic church pop up quite frequently as a driving force behind the mentality of the time (see my earlier post).

Biggins

The more that people here share their thoughts, the more worrying questions arise that clealy need to be answered.
- But Harney says "No". Thats a great shame.

Pittens

hy were these practices still employed at a time when other safer methods were available"?

Fair enough. good comment and I hadnt read the entire thread so I wasnt aware of that.

K-9

pookie82 wrote: »

No one is trying to be sensationalist for the sake of it. Even the thread title reads "and not even the church this time". But if you read into this whole sorry story you'll see the Catholic church pop up quite frequently as a driving force behind the mentality of the time (see my earlier post).

Really though, is that a surprise? This was an unfortunate symptom of Ireland at the time.

I think a better investigation would be into what went on in that hospital over a number years, not just this sole area.

Biggins

K-9 wrote: »

...I think a better investigation would be into what went on in that hospital over a number years, not just this sole area.

I agree, I know of many cases alone that are terrible indictments of how things were done in a lot of departments there.
That whole hospital and its operational history is a journalistic investigators wet-dream.

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

I agree, I know of many cases alone that are terrible indictments of how things were done in a lot of departments there.
That whole hospital and its operational history is an investigators wet-dream.

I don't think it's just that hospital.

Death in my own family that makes zero sense, concerning the checking of xrays and giving the all clear when it turned out to be anything but.

My name is URL

Biggins wrote: »

I agree, I know of many cases alone that are terrible indictments of how things were done in a lot of departments there.
That whole hospital and its operational history is a journalistic investigators wet-dream.

It's hard to believe that a full investigation into the historical running of the place hasn't taken place already tbh

Wasn't there another case recently where some woman died of C-Diff and the hospital tried to cover it up? I can't find any links atm, but I remember hearing the daughter interviewed on NewsTalk about it

Biggins

My name is URL wrote: »

It's hard to believe that a full investigation into the historical running of the place hasn't taken place already tbh

Wasn't there another case recently where some woman died of C-Diff and the hospital tried to cover it up? I can't find any links atm, but I remember hearing the daughter interviewed on NewsTalk about it

Its only one personal case but my wife lost her first pregnancy there.
She was rushed in with myself because she was bleeding very badly - we were told firstly to wait for hours despite her bleeding on the hospital floor and then without treatment or even been looked at, told in a hallway to "come back tomorrow".
We didn't even make it to the exit. She lost the child in a toilet on the way out.

I've another case that involes myself and osteomyelitis (that took me to minutes away from death) - outright stupidity by a father and son doctor there too.

The place is unreal.

MaybeLogic

Biggins wrote: »

Its only one personal case but my wife lost her first pregnancy there.
She was rushed in with myself because she was bleeding very badly - we were told firstly to wait for hours despite her bleeding on the hospital floor and then without treatment or even been looked at, told in a hallway to "come back tomorrow".
We didn't even make it to the exit. She lost the child in a toilet on the way out.

I've another case that involes myself and osteomyelitis (that took me to minutes away from death) - outright stupidity by a father and son doctor there too.

The place is unreal.

That's awful. You wonder what's wrong with a world or society that allows easily preventable things like this to happen.

My name is URL

Sorry to hear that Biggins..

The place is a disaster zone. It's scary how it's fast becoming the only place in the NE for emergency care. Navan hospital are no longer accepting emergencies and ambulances are routed directly to an over-capacity, badly run hospital

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

The place is unreal.

Was that the situation that the made Whitleblower about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wn97TsCJ0E

Biggins

OutlawPete wrote: »

Was that the situation that the made Whitleblower about?

Sorry, I don't know the background or detail to what you mention.
Its a hard subject for me and the wife, and one to be honest I don't bring up too often with her as I know it still crosses her mind, hurting.
I'm sure folk can understand that.

The_Minister

Ihaveanopinion wrote: »

Treatment is available to anyone with problem. All Irish people are entitled to free medical care in the Irish healthcare system.

What lessons? This practice isn't done anymore...

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But the practice is no longer used, so there are no lessons to be learned

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11950177
There are some people who feel it should be brought back.

ColaBeDamned

MaybeLogic wrote: »

But, again according to the report, though the practise was discontinued in most maternity units in the 60's, it continued at Lourdes till 1983.
Why?

Biggins wrote: »

Thats a question many are asking still but our government "of the people" has refused to allow an answer to be given - or even the question to be raised!
Terrible.

Why did this barbaric procedure continue in Ireland for many years after caesareans being considered best practice? Going on last night's programme, they suggested these women were used as guinea pigs for trainee doctors and nurses. Doctors and nurses who then worked abroad in hospitals in developing countries, run by Catholic missionaries. Makes more sense now, doesn't it?

As soon as it becomes available on RTE player, I'd advise people to watch last night's Prime Time on this issue.

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

Sorry, I don't know the background or detail to what you mention.
Its a hard subject for me and the wife, and one to be honest I don't bring up too often with her as I know it still crosses her mind, hurting.
I'm sure folk can understand that.

Of course, totally understand. Whistleblower was a TV Drama that RTE made regarding the situation.

The clip above was from it. Here's some more info you might like to read.

RTE's Whistleblower on Wiki

IFTN.ie Article

Whistleblower - Independent.ie Article

Whistleblower on IMT.ie

ColaBeDamned

Also, I can't remember the precise details but in the programme they said symphysiotomies were also done on some women after they had delivered through caesarean. Yes, after. I think they used the term "symphysiotomy on way out". Just horrendous.
Had a quick look on google and found this http://www.springerlink.com/content/k263p1881u7w5452/fulltext.pdf?page=1

K-9

OutlawPete wrote: »

Was that the situation that the made Whitleblower about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wn97TsCJ0E

Was that not Noonan and the Hepatitis scandal?

I'll see if I can dig out more. It isn't just FF'ers who put money over basic respect and dignity.

K-9

How close to the truth is Michael Noonan's TV villain?

That's a good summary of it.

In hindsight, it will be for a lack of political judgement in failing to shout 'stop' in relation to how the fallout from the scandal was being handled that Noonan is likely to be judged. It is also for a similar lack of judgement over his notorious and insensitive comments in the Dáil ? which were repeated in No Tears ? after the death of Brigid McCole, suggesting that McCole's solicitors should have persuaded their client to go to the government-established compensation tribunal rather than to the courts, that he will be remembered.

Up until the end of its period in office, senior figures in John Bruton's rainbow government ? in which Noonan was health minister ? repeatedly tried to maintain that the state and its agency, the Blood Transfusion Service Board (which was directly responsible for the scandal), were "separate actors" in defending the legal actions prompted by the contamination of the Anti-D blood products. For a crucial 18 months, Bruton's cabinet effectively sat on an opinion from its top legal adviser, Attorney General Dermot Gleeson, that the BTSB had been negligent in relation to the manufacture of Anti-D both in 1976/77 and again in 1991-94. This was never highlighted in the drama.

Gleeson had urged that it was imperative that neither the state nor the BTSB give any public indication of this negligence and the cabinet obviously agreed.

The state remained silent and the BTSB was never told of the AG's advice. Nor is there any record that Noonan had encouraged the agency to seek its own legal opinion (it took around another year for the agency to do so). Instead, Noonan and the government stood by as the BTSB effectively engaged in a legal war of attrition with citizens who it had in essence poisoned.

pookie82

K-9 wrote: »

Really though, is that a surprise? This was an unfortunate symptom of Ireland at the time.

I think a better investigation would be into what went on in that hospital over a number years, not just this sole area.

Actually it was a surprise to me:o I hadn't heard the connection before reading more up on it and although I know now like everyone else what the church was capable of in Irish society, I really didn't think they could have had any hand in this until I read up more on it.

I absolutely agree though, no point in spending more time investigating a corrupt and outdated institution which is rightfully on its knees in Ireland now anyway. I would promote looking into why this happened in this particular hospital and what mistakes and oversights can be avoided in future. There's a whole environment of cover up there that needs to be blown apart.

Biggins

pookie82 wrote: »

...I would promote looking into why this happened in this particular hospital and what mistakes and oversights can be avoided in future. There's a whole environment of cover up there that needs to be blown apart.

Thankfully in general things have improved but a veil of secrecy and some attitudes stemming from the past still exist.
For example, my dad who was sick repeatedly for well over a year went in for what we were told was exploratory surgery and possible "repair" depending on what they might find. The fear was cancer.
For months, many months after this single procedure alone, weekly he was running extreme high to low temperatures, taking to his bed with crippling pain and other signs that all was not well.
After a year and many, many repeated visits to local doctors and Dublin hospitals seeing numerous specials to try and solve what the hell was going on, ONLY by my mother applying through the newish freedom on information law did she discover that earlier on in the investigations, it was discovered that when the so called minor surgery was done (at the Lourdes hospital) they actually managed to leave behind in him a sharp utensil that was actually all the time puncturing him and by this alone was repeatedly causing infections beside other damage.
This was only discovered by my mother by actually, eventually seeing the x-rays!

Note, my point is this. In all that time NOT ONE of ANY medical staff spoke up and said to my mam and dad "Well hey, this is the reason why this is happening" - Since his files had done more rounds than Mike Tyson, all those that had seen them, looked at the filed away x-rays, had stared my parents in the face and ALL maintained a veil of secrecy across each desk and casualty room my dad had to repeatedly visit and opted not to tell what had happened, not telling on previous medical staff that then didn't even know (the attitude of secrecy), didn't say what was going on and would probably still be doing so - until I suggested to my ageing mother that she should apply to see her husbands actual records herself.

The above single incident only happened in the last year or two by the way!

That attitude ALONE of "we don't tell nothing" and cover-up is STILL seriously ingrained into our medical society and needs to be eradicated.

pookie82

Biggins wrote: »

Thankfully in general things have improved but a veil of secrecy and some attitudes stemming from the past still exist.
For example, my dad who was sick repeatedly for well over a year went in for what we were told was exploratory surgery and possible "repair" depending on what they might find. The fear was cancer.
For months, many months after this single procedures alone, weekly he was running extreme high to low temperatures, taking to his bed with crippling pain and other signs that all was not well.
After a year and many, many repeated visits to local doctors and Dublin hospitals seeing numerous specials to try and solve what the hell was going on, ONLY by my mother applying through the newish freedom on information law did she discover that earlier on in the investigations, it was discovered that when the so called minor surgery was done (at the Lourdes hospital) they actually managed to left behind in him a sharp utensil that was actually all the time puncturing him and by this alone was repeatedly causing infections beside other damage.
This was only discovered by my mother by actually, eventually seeing the x-rays!

Note, my point is this. In all that time NOT ONE of ANY medical staff spoke up and said to my mam and dad "Well hey, this is the reason why this is happening" - Since his files had done more rounds than Mike Tyson, all those that had seen them had stared my parents in the face and ALL maintained a veil of secrecy across each desk and casualty room my dad had to repeatedly visit and not to tell what had happened, not telling on previous medical staff that then didn't even know (the attitude of secrecy), didn't say what was going on and would probably still be doing so - until I suggested to my ageing mother that she should apply to see her husbands actual records herself.

That attitude ALONE is seriously ingrained into our medical society and needs to be eradicated.

That's really scary and appalling. I'm really sorry to hear about your wife's experience too. Sounds like you've been failed a lot by the healthcare system in this country.

Biggins

pookie82 wrote: »

That's really scary and appalling. I'm really sorry to hear about your wife's experience too. Sounds like you've been failed a lot by the healthcare system in this country.

Yes. and we are still getting screwed around by it - our daughter has scoliosis.
Regular posters here will know that I'm fighting for the maintaining of her treatments, the non-closure of wards in Crumlins Childrens Hospital and the non-reduction of their services.
All of which Harney is allowing to happen and more...
(See this thread HERE)

xzanti

I was watching this the other night and thinking (apart from being completely repulsed) about tourists watching RTE while over here.. this place is a dump :mad:

baalthor

OutlawPete wrote: »

Was that the situation that the made Whitleblower about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wn97TsCJ0E

Whistleblower was about a separate Drogheda issue: Dr Neary's womb removal hobby:(

My sister and I were born in the hospital but fortunately my mum was spared any of the above horrors.

While she was waiting to have one of us she heard a nurse say: "Mrs x was taken up to have her pelvis broken " and was of course terrified that this might happen to her.

As a child I remember her talking about this and I thought it sounded barbaric but at the time you assumed that this was something that had to be done in an emergency situation.

El Siglo

Here's a BMJ article from 2001, you can only get it if you're with an Athens registered institution.

BMJ 2001;322:1200 ( 19 May )
News roundup

Ireland orders inquiry into "barbaric" obstetric practices
Doug Payne Dublin

The Irish health minister has ordered an investigation by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists into the use by some surgeons, 40 to 50 years ago, of procedures to open the pelvis as an alternative to caesarean sections.

The minister’s statement in the legislature came after one of the national newspapers ran an interview with a 70 year old Dublin woman who said she had been incontinent and in severe pain since surgery in 1958, which she described as ruining her life.

"It was the most excruciating thing I’ll ever experience," she told the newspaper. "I saw them sawing the bone away—I was fully conscious. It was barbaric. You wouldn’t do it to a dog."

The procedures being investigated are symphysiotomy and pubiotomy, both of which were used to effect an immediate dramatic increase in the size of the pelvic outlet to permit delivery. Pubiotomy is the division of the pubic ramus half an inch from the symphysis pubis, while symphysiotomy involves the surgical division of the cartilage of the pubic symphysis by scalpel.

Several hundred procedures were carried out between 1944 and 1964 at maternity hospitals in Dublin before being stopped because of concern over their effects on mothers and on the death rate of babies. Several of the women in whom the procedure was carried out are now contemplating legal actions arising from long term pain and incontinence, but many hospital records have disappeared or been destroyed.

The minister’s statement in the legislature that an investigation had been ordered made reference to symphysiotomy, but the newspaper stories on the controversy indicate that both procedures were carried out. Known complications include haemorrhage, injury to the urethra or bladder, vesicovaginal or urethrovaginal fistula, stress incontinence, sepsis, and pelvic osteoarthropathy. In some cases women experienced difficulty in walking and an unstable pelvis.

The National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street, Dublin, performed 165 of the procedures in seven years during the 1950s. Other operations took place in the Coombe Women’s Hospital. An academic researcher at University College Dublin recently discovered the scale of the operations and said that doctors persisted in the practice for religious rather than medical reasons.

Some doctors have defended the practice, saying caesarean sections were thought too dangerous. There is also a suggestion that as the procedures effect a permanent increase of the pelvic capacity they would have avoided the possible occurrence of multiple caesarean sections.

The researcher uncovered a letter from Dr Alex Spain, a doctor who performed many of the procedures, which said that caesarean sections were perfectly safe but that it would be a long time before such a method of delivery were accepted by the profession because acceptance would lead to "contraception, the mutilating operation of sterilisation, and marital difficulty."

Absolutely disgraceful so it is. It's funny though, we hear all of this stuff about female genital mutilation among Muslims and here we are preaching from the pulpit and doing much of the same thing to our own women. Ah sure, George Lee leaving FG, Willie O'Dea lying and badmouthing, Headshops burning, these are all hot topic issues really and must be more important!:rolleyes:

Fluffybums

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11950177
There are some people who feel it should be brought back.

A quick search on PubMed shows that symphysiotomy my be a safer course of action in 3rd world countries than C-section because it does not involve open abdominal surgery. C-section, by my reading of the of some of the abstracts on PubMed, is safer where proper surgical services are available (ie. aseptic surgery, support wards, antibiotics etc that are available in 1st world countries). The argument also appears to be that, in 3rd world countries, women may have no choice but to go through multiple pregnancies and if the they are small and/or the babies are big breaking the pelvis will allow for safer births and protect the life of mother and baby. In one full paper I read, there was concern that doctors were being taught to deal with birth based on US/Europrean practice and as such were not taught to safely perform symphysiotomy and when these doctors went to practice in rural areas carried out C-sections which could not be supported especially where done for successive births and the mother and child mortality rates were excessively high.

From PLoS Med 2007; 4(3) Dowe Arie Anne Verkuyl

"Comparing symphysiotomies to CSs in circumstances that are now only present in developing countries, Björklund found that: maternal mortality is much lower with symphysiotomies; the short-term complications are less serious; and babies do not do worse as a result of symphysiotomy. And, although there may be a higher rate of long-term minor and moderate side effects with symphysiotomy, the operation results in far fewer subsequent CSs. Björklund concluded: “If valid conclusions can be drawn from one hundred years of retrospective studies, there is considerable evidence to support a reinstatement of symphysiotomy in the obstetric arsenal, for the benefit of women in obstructed labour and their offspring”.
Similar results were reported in 2004 from one hospital in Nigeria where 1,013 consecutive symphysiotomies were performed over an 18-year period [2]. There was only one maternal death (from massive pulmonary embolism), one iatrogenic vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF), and two women had long-term gait problems. In one year, 1985, the hospital had a symphysiotomy rate of 6.6% and over the entire 18-year period a rate of 3.7%.

With regard to what happened here - unless the doctors involved felt that the health service was at 3rd world standards the practice should have been stopped decades before it was. So either the practitioners felt the hospital met 3rd world standards or the ethos of the management followed that indicated below.


From the same paper quoted above:

"History: First described in France in 1777. Performed extensively in twentieth century, especially in Catholic countries such as Ireland and Argentina where every contraceptive method, even for medical reasons, other than total abstinence was forbidden by the Catholic Church until 1951. This made multiple pregnancies inevitable and dangerous for women with a small pelvis and a healthy husband [7]. Symphysiotomies were the only alternative to caesarean sections for such women, given that contraception and of course divorce were not options."

Stercus Accidit

Ok guys, this in no way affects me but it reads as pretty disgraceful stuff.

What is the best thing to do, write to my local TD? If everyone did the same would that pressurise the government to put pressure on the minister?

OutlawPete

This country has always been fcuked up when it comes to the medical system.

It wasn't just priests in this country that automatic and unwarranted respect.

Doctors also had that power over people for years and still do to some extent.

I had an aunt with MS who was beaten when she couldn't move her limbs by shrinks. They locked her in a mental hospital and gave her shock treatment. They said she was just hysterical and totally destroyed her as she lost chunks of memory after that, a well known side effect.

A barbaric from of treatment. You might as well us a cattle prod on people.

It is still in use as far as I know too. I aware that it was for certain in a Monaghan 'hospital' in 2004 as I had a relative who was sectioned and they used shock 'treatment' for three months, which the family tried to stop, unsuccessfully.

I know many people who have also went undiagnosed with conditions for many years cause doctors didn't do their jobs right.

A lot of cracks have been papered over in this country and I would say only a fraction of them have come to light.