Savita Halappanavar - Independent inquiry the only option

As a nation we have great difficulty with the idea of truth.

We do not recognise that certain situations demand certain responses. We struggle with the actuality that truth is not just a set of facts but that it is a real, active thing that must be observed even if that means — finally — taking hard decisions.

It seems truth must not be allowed to challenge beliefs. Equally, we have great difficulty with the idea alive in any functioning society that one person’s truth is another’s barbarism but they must still live together.

We have, in an effort to establish the truth at least ostensibly, endured tribunal after tribunal, spent hundreds of millions on an ineffective form of inquiry. It would be commendable if that realisation was behind the fact that more than four years after we were betrayed by domestic bankers and enthralled politicians we have not had a bank inquiry but, sadly, that is not the case. We have not had a banking inquiry, though one is laughably mooted for 2014, despite the fact that the standard tribunal running over years — 15 in one instance — cannot establish anything that can be used in a court as evidence. Tribunals can be delayed by court action after court action and if that won’t long-finger the inevitable for long enough those under scrutiny can get sick and bring the entire proceedings to a halt. Surely those terms would have a certain appeal to some of the fallen heroes who might have to face a banking tribunal?

We showed our aversion to the truth too when we voted against an amendment to the Constitution that would have allowed Oireachtas committees hold inquiries, compel witnesses and have their conclusions recognised as fact. Reform Minister Brendan Howlin is working on a new amendment and hopefully it will be easier to endorse. The destruction of the Freedom of Information Act could not happen in a society that cherished basic honesty in its public affairs either.

We have foolishly bought the idea that self regulation for various professions is adequate to protect consumers or patients. The latest episode in this catalogue of self preservation was the HSE proposal that three consultants from University College Hospital Galway should be members of the inquiry to report on the death of Savita Halappanavar in that hospital. Though the consultants’ integrity is not at all in question it is entirely inappropriate that anyone from that hospital be a member of the inquiry. Their sole role is to be honest and co-operative witnesses.

This was recognised by Savita’s widower Praveen who has said he wants an independent inquiry and will not co-operate with one organised by the HSE. The unsuitability of the original proposal was belatedly recognised by the Government who have asked these three people to stand down. Would they have acted if Mr Halappanavar had not objected?

It is sad that it has taken a tragedy involving someone not prepared to accept what we routinely imagine as appropriate to point out how very compliant, how very pathetic we are on these matters. There must be an independent inquiry and it must report quickly, nothing less is remotely acceptable.

Of course an inquiry might not be necessary and Savita Halappanavar might be alive if any of the last seven governments had the courage, the honesty to resolve the legal confusion that may have cost Savita her life. Surely Enda Kenny and his Government will find the gumption, the backbone, to stop making excuses and be honest enough to do what they were elected to do? Surely this destructive dishonesty cannot continue?