Medical Council to review procedures

THE Medical Council, the State body which regulates doctors, has launched a major review into the way it operates following stinging criticism from patient groups.

Former attorney general Harry Whelehan is to lead the review which is aimed at improving a number of areas, such as the way investigations into the conduct of doctors are handled.

Patient groups have complained the body is overly secretive and has spent years investigating doctors to assess whether they are suitable for their positions.

However, the Medical Council feels it is hamstrung by 20-year-old legislation which restricts it from expanding the council to cope with its heavy workload.

They also want to appoint more people to the council’s 25-member voluntary group, including lay people, and hope changes will be contained in new legislation being drafted by the Department of Health.

Despite restrictions on the council, women who claim they had their wombs needlessly removed by a doctor in Co Louth say they have been treated disgracefully by being forced to wait over three years for answers.

They say the council has repeatedly cancelled meetings and were insensitive to women who were due to give evidence to a fitness-to-practice investigation.

The investigation is still continuing despite the fact that the High Court last year found the obstetrician, Dr Michael Neary, was medically negligent in the first of more than 60 legal actions due to be taken against him. Dr Neary is appealing the ruling.

The Medical Council removed his name from the medical register in 1999 pending the outcome of its inquiry. Since then the inquiry team has met on 30 occasions and around six meetings have been cancelled.

A spokesperson for the Medical Council said it was dealing with large volumes of paperwork and expected the fitness-to-practice inquiry will be completed at some stage this year.

Dr Tony O’Sullivan of Patient Focus, which represents many of the women at the centre of the controversy, yesterday welcomed news of the Medical Council’s wide-ranging review. He said the council had been too legalistic and cautious when dealing with complaints and had to improve the way it dealt with the public.

“They have a medico-legal viewpoint, but that doesn’t preclude them from treating people well. A High Court or criminal court can treat witnesses well, so I don’t see why it should be a problem.

“I hope the review will ensure that its procedures are just and efficient. An increase in the number of lay representatives in the council would also be a help,” Dr O’Sullivan said.

He added Patient Focus would like to be consulted as part of the review process as they knew what impact the council’s operations had on patients.