The Medical Missionaries of Mary, which operated Our Lady Of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, when a controversial childbirth procedure was carried out on an 18-year-old woman more than 30 years ago, has asked the High Court to dismiss the woman's claim for damages on grounds of delay in bringing the legal action.
Olivia Kearney claims the "symphysiotomy" procedure was carried out on her without her knowledge and consent in 1969 and had been abandoned in the developed world in the 19th century.
She claims it left her with permanent enlargement of the pelvis, incontinence and that sexual intercourse remains painful. She claims she only learned in 2002 when she obtained her medical records from the hospital that the procedure was carried out on her.
The procedure involved sawing or cutting through cartilage that binds the two pubic bones together resulting in permanent enlargement of the pelvis.
Ms Kearney, of Rosses Hollow, Milestown, Castlebellingham, Co Louth, was eighteen years old when, she claims, the operation was carried out on her by the late Dr Gerard Connolly at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda on October 19th, 1969.
Yesterday, the hospital applied to have the proceedings dismissed against it on grounds of delay in bringing the case. Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne reserved judgment on the application.
The defendants claim inordinate and inexcusable delay in bringing the case and also claim their entitlement to a fair trial had been irreparably prejudiced by the death of Dr Connolly in 2000.
In her proceedings, Ms Kearney claims she attended Dr Connolly, a consultant gynaecologist, as a public patient. She claims he performed a Caesarean section on her at the time of the delivery of her child in 1969 and then performed a symphysiotomy.
She claims the procedure was unnecessary and carried out without her consent.
Ms Kearney said she experienced excruciating pain around the stomach and hip area following the operations. She continued to suffer from pain in her back and pelvic area and also suffers from incontinence. Intercourse remains painful and she had been left with considerable scarring. In an affidavit, she said Dr Connolly never informed her that he had carried out the procedure and neither had her GP or other doctors whom she attended over the years.
She said she has no recollection of the operations performed upon her. Her first recollection was being woken up by nuns and informed she had a baby boy. There was a bandage round her stomach and hip area. She experienced excruciating pain and was advised not to move. The pain rose to intolerable levels and she was transferred to intensive care.
In submissions, Mr Turlough O'Donnell SC, for Ms Kearney, said that, with the advance of the Caesarean section operation, the symphysiotomy procedure fell into dispute and was largely abandoned in the developed world.
An expert medical witness, Dr Roger Clements, would allege that, at the time of the operation in 1969, no medical practitioner would have done such a thing. Dr Clements' view was that there was outright condemnation of such an operation on a patient who already had had a Caesarean section, that it was a departure from approved practice and a gratuitous and improper operation without Ms Kearney's consent.