Savita inquiry - Husband’s wish should be granted

What an appalling debacle this Government and its agencies have made of the proposed inquiry into the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, a probe that is now going ahead without involving her husband, Praveen.

What should have been a relatively simple proposition, namely the setting up of an independent investigation into the circumstances of her death at Galway University Hospital, has descended into chaos in a blatant display of insensitivity by the authorities.

Yesterday saw Enda Kenny under fire during leader’s questions in the Dáil as he appealed to Savita’s husband to meet, without prejudice, the international chairman of the inquiry into the death of his pregnant wife. This suggestion was rejected by Mr Halappanavar, who questioned the objectivity of a chairman paid by the HSE.

There can be no doubting Mr Kenny’s sincerity when he says it is “imperative” to get to the truth of the circumstances leading up to Mrs Halappanavar’s death. But a difficulty for the Taoiseach is that this controversy goes to the heart of Ireland’s abject failure over 20 years to legislate for the X case, a landmark Supreme Court judgment of 1992 which allows for medical termination in cases where a mother’s life is in jeopardy.

Mr Kenny’s known reluctance to legislate is now a damaging factor in the Coalition’s confused approach to legalising a limited form of adoption. He was roundly criticised in yesterday’s Dáil session by Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin who said it was inappropriate for him to make direct appeals to a grieving husband.

The controversy will also cause further damage to the image of Health Minister James Reilly, who decided to go ahead with an inquiry without involving Mr Halappanavar despite initially promising to hold an investigation that would create new international standards.

Given the irreconcilable differences between the dead woman’s husband and the HSE, surely the sensible course of action would have been for the State to drop its original proposal altogether and opt instead for a truly independent hearing, as called for in the Irish Examiner yesterday.

Mr Halappanavar’s preference for an open and transparent inquiry, where witnesses could be cross-examined under oath, is understandable. Under the terms of the 2004 Commission of Investigation Act, such an inquiry, presided over by a judge or senior counsel, could have been set up and held within a limited timespan.

Hopes this format would be taken on board by the Government flared briefly when the family solicitor said they would look into the proposal depending on the terms of reference, and provided evidence could be tested properly within the normal legal constraints.

From the outset, Mr Halappanavar was unhappy about the HSE move to appoint three consultants from the hospital at the centre of this controversy to join the inquiry team. They have now been removed, but, on the age-old principle that nobody should adjudicate on their own cause, he rightly viewed the inquiry set up by the HSE as akin to the police investigating the police.

Essentially, he wants to tell his story of what transpired at the hospital in the dark days leading up to his wife’s death, a death which may have been avoided if seven Irish governments had not shirked the challenge of legislating for the X case.

He considered an independent investigation as a guarantee that the hearing would take place in full view of the public eye. At the very least, this heartless Government should have granted him that wish.

* Read more:

Reilly urged to scrap inquiry

She will rest in peace if justice is done

Words you want to be a link

‘Inquiry terms of reference presented as fait accompli to family’

‘England’s proximity meant Ireland did not have to legislate for abortion’

Savita’s family request medical records

Savita inquiry - Husband’s wish should be granted