Neary patients group disappointed at ruling

Sheila O'Connor of the Patient Focus group which represents former patients of Dr Michael Neary, said that it was disappointed but not surprised at the High Court ruling.

She said that the group would be asking the Medical Council to appeal the judgment. Ms O'Connor said that she was saddened that in the course of a one-and-three-quarter-hour judgment there had been no mention of the women damaged by Dr Neary's practice.

The judgment was delivered just hours before the Patient Focus group met Minister for Health Mary Harney to press for an extension to the redress scheme established to compensate women affected by Dr Neary's practice.

At present the scheme applies only to women who had their wombs unnecessarily removed in the course of having a baby and women under 40 who had had their ovaries unnecessarily removed.

Ms O'Connor said that there were a number of women who fell outside these categories.

The Medical Council is expected to hold a special meeting in early January to consider the implications arising from the High Court ruling.

Medical Council president Dr Colm Quigley said yesterday that it would be studying the judgment.

He said that it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

It is expected that the council will commission its own legal advice on the implications of the ruling by Mr Justice Peter Kelly.

It is likely that the council will consider whether the judgment would have implications for other cases of alleged professional misconduct dealt with by the council.

The two obstetricians at the centre of yesterday's proceedings, Prof Walter Prendiville and Dr John Murphy, had been asked by the Irish Hospital Consultants' Association in 1998 to review files on a number of Dr Neary's patients.

They later produced reports opposing the suspension of Dr Neary on the basis of his undertaking that he would not perform any more Caesarean hysterectomies unless he had the agreement of another consultant.

A third consultant, Dr Bernard Stuart, also ruled against by the Fitness to Practise Committee, was not party to the court proceedings.