A father of seven who claims his life is a misery due to constant pain suffered since undergoing a vasectomy 17 years ago has lost his High Court claim for damages against the doctor who performed the procedure.
John Winston (47), Ratoath Avenue, Finglas West, Dublin, had sued Dr Niall O'Leary over the vasectomy carried out on him at Dr O'Leary's surgery in Finglas on July 15th 1989.
In a statement outside court afterwards, Mr Winston said that, after 17 years "of pain and anguish", he was delighted that his case had been heard.
The case was about the right of men to have full disclosure of the effects of vasectomy, which was touted as a simple procedure, he said.
The success of vasectomies was usually measured only by having no further pregnancies but the procedure's biggest failure had been the unspoken devastating side effects which it could have on a man's life, he said. It has been accepted, Mr Winston added, that there was a 2-5 per cent risk of being left with permanent chronic testicular pain following a vasectomy.
He called on the Department of Health to issue doctors with guidelines on how to fully inform their patients about the risks of chronic testicular pain.
Mr Winston had claimed negligence arising from an alleged failure by Dr O'Leary to warn him before the operation that there was a risk of contracting post vasectomy pain syndrome (PVPS).
Mr Justice John MacMenamin said there was "no doubt" that Mr Winston had suffered pain and that there had been an extremely significant and detrimental effect on his life as a result of what occurred.
However, "the sympathy one must inevitably feel must not cloud assessment of the evidence", he said. In those circumstances, he dismissed the claim and adjourned the issue of costs to the new year.
The judge ruled that on the evidence, it had not been established that Dr O'Leary was negligent.
Dealing with a consultation at Dr O'Leary's surgery on June 29th, 1989, between Dr O'Leary, Mr Winston and his wife Bridget, the judge found Mr Winston had not satisfied the court that his account of what happened at that meeting was more probable than that of Dr O'Leary.
Mr Winston had claimed that at this meeting, he was not warned about the risks of long-term pain as a result of having a vasectomy.
However, the judge said he was satisfied Dr O'Leary, on the balance of probabilities, had not deviated from his normal practice.
He rejected the claim that Dr O'Leary had not provided adequate information on the risks of the vasectomy operation, having regard to known risks or what was appropriate in the circumstances.