Would it not be odd if a teacher found guilty of behaviour which might have endangered children was allowed to continue teaching without interference? asks Mary Raftery
Similarly, should we not be alarmed if we discover that an airline pilot, judged to have put the safety of passengers at potential risk, was permitted to carry on flying without the slightest restriction?
Why then are not these questions being asked of the Medical Council? Despite its finding last week that three obstetricians were guilty of misconduct, it decided not to apply either sanctions or conditions to their continuing practice. These three doctors had exonerated Michael Neary of any bad practice when they examined a selection of his patients' files from the Lourdes hospital in Drogheda during late 1998. At that stage, two nurses had already raised concerns with the North Eastern Health Board about Neary's pervasive habit of surgically removing women's wombs. Neary himself had been temporarily suspended from duty.
The health board was sufficiently alarmed to want to remove Neary immediately and permanently from the hospital. However, both he and the Irish Hospital Consultants Association (IHCA) objected and suggested instead that three specialists from other hospitals should review Neary's practice.
The three in question were duly chosen. It is they who last week were found guilty of professional misconduct by the Medical Council. They are Prof Walter Prendiville and Dr Bernard Stuart of the Coombe Women's Hospital, and Dr John Murphy of the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street.
Their reports clearing Neary of any wrongdoing have never been made public. However, thanks to the inquiry by Judge Maureen Harding Clark into the extraordinarily high rate of Caesarean hysterectomy at the Drogheda hospital, we know that they not only exonerated Neary, but also showered him with praise.
On receiving their report, the health board felt obliged to allow Neary return to his practice at the hospital. And it is here that the critical issue of patient safety arises, not just for these three obstetricians, but also for the IHCA which had facilitated the process of allowing Neary return to work. Given his alarming rate of womb removal immediately prior to his temporary suspension, it would have been entirely possible that he could have further mutilated women on foot of his exoneration.
To its eternal credit, however, the health board referred the same patient files to a UK obstetrician, who came to exactly the opposite conclusion about Neary. On foot of this, Neary was removed from the hospital.
It is fair to conclude that the actions of Prof Prendiville, Dr Stuart and Dr Murphy seriously jeopardised the safety of pregnant women in Drogheda. Consequently, the decision of the Medical Council not to take action against these doctors is highly questionable.
At the very least, one might have thought that it would have insisted on some limitations on their teaching roles. Two are involved at senior levels in the formation, training and guidance of young doctors.
Walter Prendiville is a professor at the Royal College of Surgeons and a senior faculty member of its department of obstetrics and gynaecology. He is directly concerned with the training of future specialists. One has to ask about the appropriateness of someone found guilty by his peers of professional misconduct continuing in such a role.
The College of Surgeons, however, yesterday declined to make any comment on this issue. The Coombe Women's Hospital, where Prof Prendiville teaches and where Dr Stuart also practises does not feel that any action is called for. It told me yesterday that both would continue working normally at the hospital, and paid fulsome tribute to them for their service over many years. (It did also acknowledge the pain suffered by Neary's victims.) Holles Street hospital, where Dr Murphy works, has no comment to make on the implications of a finding of misconduct against one of its consultants. Dr Murphy also plays a key role in the education of doctors as the president of the College of Physicians. It also has no comment to make on the Medical Council findings.
And while we're on the subject of comments, the joint statement last week by the three obstetricians is in direct contradiction to the views expressed by Judge Harding Clark in her report. She considered that they had seriously regretted their actions. They have expressed no such public contrition, however, stating instead that the Medical Council is fundamentally wrong to find them guilty of misconduct.
A real issue arises here as to whether it means anything to have such a finding made against a doctor by the council. It has been argued that the damage caused to these obstetricians' reputations is in itself sufficient sanction. This, however, is unlikely to satisfy anyone who believes that professional misconduct deserves more than a metaphoric slap on the wrist.