A notice on the Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme website
You may recall how last year Marie O’Connor, of Survivors of Symphysiotomy, spoke about the group’s grievances in relation to the symphysiotomy redress scheme.
She explained that the scheme demanded survivors to produce ‘objective evidence of women’s injuries’ – including receipts for incontinence pads or prescriptions for anti-depressants going back 50 to 60 years.
Further to this, it’s emerged that the Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme is “happy to shred” the women’s records and supporting documents to prove they had a symphysiotomy.
In response, a number of academics and medical experts wrote the following letter in yesterday’s Irish Times…
The Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme announced on its website this week that it will be “happy” to shred records, if applicants are so minded, or in the alternative, return them.
The UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern that symphysiotomy was performed in Ireland without patient consent from 1944-1987, and cited Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and involuntary medical experimentation.
The committee ruled that Ireland should, inter alia, “initiate a prompt, independent and thorough investigation into cases of symphysiotomy” and “prosecute and punish the perpetrators, including medical personnel”.
Obstetric records that could potentially be destroyed may be some claimants’ only proof that they were subjected to the surgery. Many notes record the name of those who participated in these involuntary operations.
There is no guarantee that these records will be accessible in the future to investigators, researchers or even to claimants themselves. To shred these data after March 20th, as proposed, is therefore to destroy material that will be needed in any future inquiry (or research) into symphysiotomy.
Survivors are continuing to press for an inquiry with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. A further submission has been made by them to the UN Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review, a framework under which Ireland will be assessed in May of this year, and a complaint to the UN Committee Against Torture is due for examination in 2017.
Informed consent is also an issue. Applicants who do not seek the return of their obstetric records are not being informed that they may not be retrievable from their hospitals of origin.
Indeed, the Department of Health has recently given public assurances to the contrary, stating that “medical records cannot be lost by any action of the scheme”. Hospital data storage limitations suggest that this is not the case.
We urge Judge Harding Clark to reconsider her decision and return all records to all applicants by post, as per the scheme’s terms of reference.
Dr Sarah-Anne Buckley,
Department of History,
NUIG;Dr Fiona Buckley,
Department of Government,
UCC;Prof Linda Connolly,
Institute for Social Science
in the 21st Century, UCC;Prof Mary Donnelly,
School of Law, UCC;Mairead Enright,
Law School,
University of Kent;Dr Noelle Higgins,
Department of Law,
Maynooth University;Mark Kelly,
Executive Director,
Irish Councilfor Civil Liberties;Prof Kathleen Lynch,
Equality Studies, UCD;Fred Logue,
Solicitor;Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless,
School of Nursing
and Midwifery, TCD;Prof Joan Lalor,
School of Nursing
and Midwifery, TCD;Prof Patricia Lundy,
School of Sociology and Applied Social Studies, University of Ulster;Prof Louise Kenny,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
CUMH;Prof Irene Lynch Fannon,
School of Law, UCC;Dr Mary McAuliffe,
School of Social Policy,
Social Work and Social Justice, UCD;Dr Joan McCarthy,
School of Nursing and Midwifery, UCC;Dr Claire McGing,
Department of Geography,
Maynooth University;Dr Jacqueline Morrissey,
Historian;Daragh O’Brien,
Katherine O’Keeffe,
Data specialists,
Castlebridge Associates;Marie O’Connor,
Chairwoman,
Survivors of Symphysiotomy.
Shredding symphysiotomy records (Irish Times letters page, March 7, 2016)
Previously: ‘Prove It, Prove It, Prove It’
Pic: Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme
Does it not say anyone who wants can have the ducments back?
It also seems to say that you have to ask them to shred them, it does not imply this will automatically happen. They’re just offering it as a service for people who may be worried about their medical documents going missing/being inadvertently read by someone at a later stage. Not 100% sure what the controversy is here. I guarantee you that if they just “returned them by post”, without first asking the victims, some of the documents would inevitably go to a previous postal address and someone would inadvertently end up reading them, and we’d have people (rightly) complaining about that.