Neary probe ‘needs greater powers’

WOMEN who had their wombs removed unnecessarily will tell Health Minister Micheál Martin tomorrow that the State’s inquiry into the controversy must have powers to summon witnesses and documents if it is to have their support.

Patient Focus, which represents the women, will also tell Mr Martin it has the backing of the 130 patients to turn its back on the inquiry into operations performed by Dr Michael Neary at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda if it falls short of what they want.

Chairperson Sheila O’Connor said they also wanted the inquiry’s terms of reference broadened to include women who had their ovaries needlessly removed and others damaged through gynaecological surgery performed by the consultant obstetrician.

Ms O’Connor also claimed there were other women who had their pregnancy and labour badly managed, leading to the death of a number of babies.

Dr Neary was struck off the medical register last year for wrongly removing the wombs of 10 of his patients.

The doctor performed more than 20 times the number of Caesarean hysterectomies performed in other major Dublin hospitals in the 1990s.

Patient Focus, which met with the women and their partners in Dublin on Monday night to make a final decision on the inquiry, said it was hoping the minister would have a change of heart on the matter.

Ms O’Connor said he minister should ensure people like Dr Neary are prevented from damaging people.

“What happened in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital was serial malpractice,” she said.

While she understood people were getting tired of tribunals that did not mean meaningful investigations into real human tragedy should not be held.

“This has to be fully investigated. No civilised democratic society can fail to investigate these types of scandals,” she said.

Ms O’Connor also said the Constitution was acting as a bar to State inquiries and might have to be changed because of the protection it afforded to a person’s reputation.

“We feel that a person’s reputation can be adequately protected by legislation,” she said.

“Why is that more important than the life and limb of patients? It’s just not reasonable.”