Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE UNITED NATION’S committee on human rights has told Ireland it should open a “prompt, independent and thorough investigation” into cases of symphysiotomy.
In its recommendations for Ireland following a review of the country’s human rights record, the committee said it was concerned at the State’s failure to initiate a comprehensive probe.
The “concluding observations”, published today, said Ireland should also identify, prosecute and punish – where still possible – the perpetrators for performing symphysiotomy without patient consent.
The UN noted that Ireland had released two reports on the matter and had planned an ex-gratia scheme of the survivors. However, more needs to be done for an “effective remedy”, it added.
Such remedies should include “fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation on an individualised basis”.
According to the committee, victims should also be allowed to launch a legal challenge to the sums offered to them under the scheme. The amounts planned for survivors have been set at €50,000, €100,000 and €150,000.
The conclusions have been welcomed by survivor group, Survivors of Symphysiotomy.
“It fully vindicates our campaign for truth and justice and exposes the the State’s failure to date to provide an effective remedy for this breach of human rights,” chairperson Marie O’Connor said.
“Medical experimentation heightens the need for patient consent. In its latest statement to the UN, the Government claimed that patient consent was given in all cases where the operation was planned. This is a travesty of the truth. No woman ever consented to getting her pelvis broken in childbirth as an alternative to having a Caesarean section.”
Survivors
In their 50-page submission to the committee, Survivors of Symphysiotomy had recounted their personal experiences of the childbirth operation which has been described as barbaric and cruel.
A symphysiotomy was a procedure carried out on pregnant women before, during or after birth in the place of a Caesarean Section. It involved breaking the patient’s pelvis and leaving it permanently enlarged.
The women, the majority of whom were in their early 20s and having their first child, have suffered chronic pain, incontinence, walking difficulties, sexual problems and other issues for their entire lives as a result.
Many of the women have rejected the government’s ex-gratia scheme proposal because they would be “signing away their legal rights as a condition of entry”.
Court Cases
Legal cases involving two women, aged 71 and 75, are currently being passed through the courts.
One of the symphysiotomies in question was carried out 12 days before delivery in the Coombe in 1963. The other, was a post Caesarean Section, or ‘on the way out’ procedure.
Another case, which had been before in the High Court earlier this month, was mentioned in front of Justice Mary Irvine yesterday following the death of the plaintiff.
Noreen Burns, 83, passed away on Saturday. She had been seeking an early hearing for her legal action because of failing health.
Ahead of the hearing on 8 July, the National Maternity Hospital’s legal team had told the plaintiff it could seek costs if she pursued her case.
O’Connor today asked: “The National Maternity Hospital might confirm whether it is now hospital policy to threaten women in their 80s and 90s, who are seeking to vindicate their rights after a lifetime of pain and suffering, in this way?”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Ireland should also identify, prosecute and punish – where still possible – the perpetrators for performing symphysiotomy without patient consent.”
Correct those who were responsible need to be identified and prosecuted for this barbaric practise.
This is already illegal, they can’t hide behind religion on this:
OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT,
“serious harm” means injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement or substantial loss or impairment of the mobility of the body as a whole or of the function of any particular bodily member or organ;
4.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly causes serious harm to another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for life or to both.
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
As usual it’s the same problem, we have very strong laws on the books, police more than willing to enforce those laws…but judges who seem to be incapable of putting serious criminals away, but are eager to lock teenage boyfriends up for consensual sex with their own girlfriends, and pensioners up for refusal to subscribe to RTE.
If we can, as we have seen, be convicted of killing someone and walk away with no jail time, I would not hold out much hope for this…I know judicial discretion can be important in complex cases but something needs to be done here…we may need to start threatening impeachment ..some judges casually note mandatory minimums are in the laws…then ignore them…I mean how can they do that?
Too late for Noreen Burns –
Mrs. Burns was dying at the time and asked for her case to be expedited. She passed away this week.
From the article “the hospital [NMH Holles St.] would be opposing the action and costs would be sought against Mrs Burns’ side”.
I hope they’re ashamed of themselves but I’d say they don’t give a toss.
The entire concept of shame, or indeed fairness, does not enter the orbit of these great and good people who are in charge of our ‘welfare’ and demand to be looked up to and admired. This was a simple commercial decision. If the Plaintiff dies, their action dies with them. The most that could possibly be paid would be a recoupment of outlay etc., in other words, chickenfeed. It really does pay to delay and grind these individuals into the ground.
Indeed we should have an investigation on this barbaric practice.
However the UN Human Rights Council features such liberal Utopias as Iran, Pakistan and Kenya so you’ll excuse me if I take their recommendations re human rights with a pinch of salt.
A packet of saxa more like!
I think symphysiotomy just got googled over 1,500 time in the last hour
The UN need to deal.with the real.issue in the world… Israel for a start.. and let countries deal with local laws…
@Brian
The UN is big enough to work on several issues full stop. And this is a real issue full stop. Full stop.
Sp they should deal with only one thing at a time ?, dumb
UN? What a waste of space..
have your say