Council refuses to make procedures public

THE Medical Council has adopted new procedures after a High Court judge criticised its modus operandi, but has declined to say what those changes involve.

Last month, in quashing a Medical Council finding of professional misconduct against two doctors, Mr Justice Peter Kelly found fault with a number of procedures followed by both the Medical Council and its fitness to practise committee (FPC) in reaching their verdict.

The Medical Council had upheld the finding of its FPC that Prof Walter Prendeville, obstetrician/gynaecologist, and Dr John F Murphy, obstetrician/gynaecologist, were guilty of professional misconduct. Both men were involved in compiling a report in 1998 that allowed now disgraced obstetrician/gynaecologist Dr Michael Neary continue working after concerns were raised about the high level of hysterectomies he had carried out while working at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda.

Prof Prendeville and Dr Murphy went to the High Court to challenge the Medical Council’s findings against them and succeeded in getting the decision of the council and its FPC committee quashed. In his ruling, Justice Kelly highlighted what he saw as a number of deficiencies in the procedures followed by both the FPC and the council. These included:

nThe fact that members of the FPC who adjudicated on the complaints made against Prof Prendeville and Dr Murphy also sat as members of the council to consider their own findings.

nThe fact that the council regarded itself as being bound by the decision of the FPC on the doctors’ guilt “was wrong in law”, Mr Justice Kelly said, and “ought to be capable of independent reconsideration by the council”.

nThe fact that there was no independent legal adviser to advise members of the council in relation to the FPC finding and that such advice as was given was provided by the registrar who had instructed counsel in the presentation of the case against the doctors before the FPC.

nThe fact that that legal advice was given only to the president and vice-president of the council and not to all council members.

nThe failure of either the FPC or the council to give the doctors the reasons for reaching their findings. Mr Justice Kelly said the doctors were “entitled to know the basis of the decision in the context of an application for judicial review”.

nMr Justice Kelly said the standard used to decide if the doctors were guilty of professional misconduct was the incorrect one and post-dated the time the Neary report was compiled.

Yesterday, the Medical Council said “it had nothing more to add at this time” when asked by the Irish Examiner if the shortcomings highlighted by Mr Justice Kelly had been addressed during its change of procedures. It confirmed that it will not be appealing Mr Justice Kelly’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Questions that remain unanswered

UNANSWERED questions submitted by the Irish Examiner to the Medical Council

1. Will it be the case that members of the Fitness to Practise Committee (FPC) who adjudicate upon complaints will no longer sit as members of the council which considers the findings of that FPC?

2. Will the council in future provide reasons for its decisions to those who are the subject of complaints which are upheld and whom the council makes findings against?

3. Will there be changes to the manner in which in-house legal advice is taken, for example will the entire council be advised and not just certain members?

4. Will the Registrar be involved in giving legal advice to the council given the role played by him before the FPC?

5. Does the council concede it has the power to overturn findings of its FPC committee and not confine itself to the question of penalty?

6. How will you apply a professional misconduct test given Justice Kelly said the wrong test was used in this instance?

7. In future press releases where findings are issued, will you also be including whether or not the doctor was sanctioned?

8. Are there any other procedural changes that you intend to introduce?