Rotunda required parents' consent, says ex-master

A former master of the Rotunda Hospital has told the High Court it was that hospital's practice in the 1980s to have parents sign a written consent form for an autopsy to be carried out on their stillborn children.

There was no such policy in the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin, the court was told.

The only circumstances in which a post-mortem on a stillborn child would be done in the Rotunda against the wishes of parents would be when a death occurred in certain circumstances and a coroner had directed that a post-mortem take place, Dr George Henry said.

Dr Henry was giving evidence in the continuing action by Mrs Bridget and Mr Terence Devlin, of Ballyogan Crescent, Carrickmines, Dublin, whose daughter was stillborn at the National Maternity Hospital on May 30th, 1988. They claim the child's organs were removed after a post-mortem which they claim occurred without their consent.

The hospital is disputing the claim and argues that there were no consent forms in 1988. It also contends that Ms Devlin did consent to the post-mortem.

Yesterday, Dr Henry said the issue of organ retention, to his knowledge, was never discussed with parents in the 1980s.

"It was considered too distressful," he said. In relation to the performance of autopsies on stillborn infants, Dr Henry said a pathologist would have to remove organs and fix them in formula before they might be examined under a microscope. It was important to fix organs in formula quickly because they began to deteriorate, especially the brain.

Organs were sometimes held for a long period to deal with the possibility that there could be a genetic disorder, he added.

Cross-examined by Mr Charles Meenan SC, for the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Henry agreed he had never worked at the National Maternity Hospital and did not know details of its policy or procedures.

He agreed the important thing in relation to the performance of autopsies on stillborn infants was to procure the parents' consent. He agreed a written consent was evidence of procuring that consent.

Mr Meenan suggested that all a written consent did was provide evidence that a parental consent was given.

Dr Henry said that when he was working in hospitals in England and the north of Ireland, there was always a policy to get a written witnessed consent before doing an autopsy.

Mr Meenan suggested that the important thing was to get the verbal consent. Dr Henry said he disagreed. One could not say for record purposes that proper consent was obtained unless it was documented, he said. He agreed a parent could consent to a post-mortem even without a written consent.

He disagreed that a pathologist could assume, in the absence of a written consent, that a consent had been obtained.

Also in evidence yesterday, Mr William Dunne said his wife had given birth to twins at the National Maternity Hospital on March 20th, 1982. One of the twins was born dead while the other had significant problems. A post-mortem was carried out on the dead baby and neither he nor his wife were asked for their consent.

A consultant had stated that the child was dead and that he, the consultant, was going to do an autopsy to ascertain the cause of death, Mr Dunne said. "I took it that every child who died had an autopsy." During his examination of Mr Dunne, Mr Pádraig McCartan SC, for the Devlins, referred to a National Maternity Hospital document, entitled "Midwives Information Report", which document, he argued, showed there was a policy in the hospital in the 1980s of "performing autopsies without consents".

Mr Dunne said he was not made aware that he or his wife had any option regarding the performance of an autopsy on their child. "I believed we had no rights or choice in the matter."

Cross-examined by Mr Meenan, Mr Dunne agreed neither he nor his wife had objected to an autopsy being carried out. If he was told there was a choice, he and his wife would have discussed the matter.

Mr Dunne said he would certainly not now agree to an autopsy.

He added that his consent was not looked for. At the time, he did not know what an autopsy meant "until I collected the child in a parcel".

The case resumes today.