Disturbed children sue health board over services

Unless the Mid Western Health Board puts the needs of children suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder into the hands of experts, it is "playing Russian roulette" with their lives, a psychologist has warned.

In a letter read in the High Court yesterday, Dr Deirdre Killilea complained that the MWHB had refused to allow her to work with ADHD children "despite many, many requests from distraught parents".

The letter was read at the opening of an action by three children with ADHD, suing through their parents, seeking orders directing the board to provide them with appropriate medical, therapeutic and psychological services.

The children, aged 7, 15 and 11 years, also took actions against the State seeking appropriate educational services, but these have been resolved. A special class for children with ADHD has been set up following a High Court order.

Mr Justice Butler said the action centred on an argument between experts on the appropriate services to be provided. He would have to rule later whether he had jurisdiction to rule between experts or whether this was a matter of constitutional rights.

In his view, the matter would best be resolved by the experts agreeing on the services, because that was bound to be superior to a direction from a court that knew nothing about such matters.

Opening the action earlier, Mr Gerard Hogan, with Mr John Hanlon, for two of the children, said the disorder was characterised by disruptive behaviour which could cause havoc for families. Such children needed particular care, which was not disputed by the health board. The disagreement was over the nature of that care.

In an affidavit, the mother of the seven-year-old said she understood that, as part of the settlement of the action, the board was also to provide suitable psychological and therapeutic services, and that Dr Deirdre Killilea, an employee of the board with extensive training and expertise in ADHD in the US, was to be involved.

However, while suitable educational provision had been made, her son remained without appropriate psychological and therapeutic services.

The mother said a consultant child psychiatrist who had been with the board, Dr Neil Adamson, had said that if the board was to provide any of the services requested by her for her son, they should be costed with a number of similar cases in mind.

She said Dr Adamson had said that resource allocation needed to take a broad perspective which included other urgent conditions, before allocating scant resources to an ADHD service.

Dr Killilea wrote to the family's solicitor last December stating it was her understanding that she was to have taught a programme on ADHD, but the board had refused to allow her to work with ADHD children.

The case continues today.