From top: Cartoon from Annie West and HSE management this afternoon

Or uncAnnie?


Uncanny so.

Belinda writes:

Today’s session of the [Joint Oireachtas] Health Committee [examining the CerivalCheck scandal] and the all-male HSE contingent was neatly forshadowed [on Monday] by Annie West on your site…thank her for me.

Previously: CervicalCheck

Earlier: Hey, Tony

31 thoughts on “Uncanny

  1. Truth in the News

    Who set up the HSE, who were the Ministers for Heath that allowed the Quango to flourish for
    years….the ultimate responsibility lies with those who had political control….from Harney on
    and not forget Varadkar he was in control too and was a qualified doctor, he was in an excellent position to ask questions…..did he….?:

    1. rotide

      You probably should look up what quango actually means before trying to apply it to the HSE

      1. Cian

        from wiki:
        “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. A quango is a hybrid form of organization, with elements of both non-government organizations (NGOs) and public sector bodies. It is typically an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies.”
        HSE does kinda fall into this description.

        1. rotide

          I always took quango to mean a government organisation with no ministerial oversight,

          Looking at the rest of the Wiki description and examples, the HSE doesn’t fall into this category

          1. Cian

            hence the ‘kinda’; Most (all?) of the 900-odd quangos in Ireland are linked to one of the Departments, and definitely have ministerial oversight.

  2. Cian

    In 2015 a decision was made by HSE, in line with international best practices, to provide information on outcomes of clinical cancer audits to treating clinicians for onward communication to patients as appropriate.

    The outcomes of all current and historical clinical cancer audits were subsequently communicated to treating clinicians in 2016.

    The doctors who were treating the women were arguably in the best position to decide if it was an appropriate time to tell the woman. But some of them felt it was not in the woman’s interest to be told.

    1. GiggidyGoo

      Arguably- yes. 2016 though? And wasn’t there some pussyfooting by Varadkar in relation to it?

        1. GiggidyGoo

          Does the term Mandatory Disclosure Amendment ring any bells?
          Cian, the more posts you make, the more deflections you make and the more ‘thanks, I didn’t know thats’ that you write, the more you out yourself. You tried the same yesterday, and a 20 second google search brought up the information you didn’t have, or look to have.
          I see you’re getting quote nervous for some reason – your reply to Catherine Costello suggests you have an agenda.
          Google Is Your Friend. GIYF. Try it.

          1. Cian

            I don’t have any agenda. I wrote a explanation on my annoyance of this topic yesterday.
            I don’t have infinite time to google things.

            No, “Mandatory Disclosure Amendment” doesn’t mean anything to me. When i googled that it suggests it was legislation enacted in 2017. So I’m not sure how this is relevant to the points i made above which was dealing with 2015 and 2016. So why do you keep making vague misleading statements?

          2. GiggidyGoo

            @Cian. You don’t have time to google things, yet can write paragraph after paragraph here? Sure!
            Do yourself a favor and research,and the Mandatory Disclosure Amendment will make sense. Try adding 2015 and 2016. Do you need your hand held? Or a map drawn?

          3. Cian

            More misdirection? Tell me what you are trying to say. Add links. Educate me.

            And tell me how that invalidate what is written above:
            “In 2015 a decision was made by HSE, in line with international best practices, to provide information on outcomes of clinical cancer audits to treating clinicians for onward communication to patients as appropriate.”

          4. GiggidyGoo

            @Cian. You’re well able to educate yourself i think. you got a Wiki link. You get other information in a similar way. But you know that already. ‘Educate me’? that’s scraping the barrel in all fairness. Educate yourself

          5. Cian

            sigh. i give up.
            You are making vague insinuations. When i press for more details you tell me to google it. But I can’t google what might be in your head.

    2. Catherine costelloe

      That is wrong Cian. A consultant wrote to Cervical Cancer concerning 10 women patients affected in Limerick. Cervical Cancer wrote back advising him to tell 3 out of his 10 patients and the consultant protested loudly at this. Maybe 7 of the women were dead? A cover up of monstrous proportions.

      1. Cian

        What? That doesn’t make any sense. If c.c. were covering up 7 of the 10 why would they have shared the details in the first place.
        I don t believe you. Have you any evidence?

          1. Cian

            Thanks for the link GiggidyGoo, and while it sounds like the same incident it reads totally differently to catherine’s synopsis above.

            Based on the IT article she could have written:
            Cervical Check wrote to a consultant concerning 10 women patients affected in Limerick. Cervical Check advised him to only tell 3 out of his 10 patients, but to “simply file” the audited test results in the patients’ medical notes. Why? because the 7 did *not* have cancer. (And they weren’t dead)

            The consultant protested loudly, and told all 10. Her response?
            “She noting his decision and saying that this “underscores the value of the local clinician reviewing the clinical context”.

            “The advice I gave was based on the limited information available to me and was given as an honest assessment of what seemed to be the best way to proceed with these cases,” she said.

            “It is right and fitting that your own clinical judgment should take precedence.”

            Perhaps I’m reading too much into that, but I really can’t see this as “A cover up of monstrous proportions.”

          2. GiggidyGoo

            @Cian. That link took a little longer than normal – 40 seconds. You can do it too. You can also put two and two together rather than discount Catherine’s post.
            Cian – you’re not fooling me. You have an agenda. You’re not as slow as you try make out.

          3. Cian

            Wait. Are you telling me that catherine’s post was a valid description of what was linked to in the Irish times?

            Secondly, if people make random claims on BS it is up to them to substantiate them, I can’t *prove* that something *didn’t* happen.

          4. Cian

            Again. Are you telling me that catherine’s post was a valid description of what was linked to in the Irish times?

  3. Hansel

    I knew it was the patriarchy all along.

    Even when it was bad management and corruption and lizard people, I knew it was the patriarchy.

    1. SOQ

      Is it not reasonable to assume that the account of dismissive attitudes by consultants above is due to the fact they must engage with the public system in order to if not gain access to facilities; then at least to ensure a timely follow up for their private patients?

        1. SOQ

          Yes interesting to see the same consultant faces in James private as James public. Less people sitting around obviously, and a better class of secretary.

Comments are closed.