A Co Dublin midwife who assists in home births has begun High Court proceedings in which she is challenging a Nursing Board decision to hold an inquiry into complaints against her.
Ms Ann O Ceallaigh, in an affidavit read to court yesterday, said she feared the "unfounded allegations" were prompted by "antipathy to home births". The court was told the allegations against Ms O Ceallaigh, a self-employed midwife, of Temple Crescent, Blackrock, Co Dublin, were made by medical and nursing executives at two Dublin maternity hospitals.
Ms O Ceallaigh has asked the court to review the board's decision to have its Fitness to Practise Committee inquire into complaints against her.
Dr Michael Forde SC, for Ms O Ceallaigh, said his client made no complaint about the manner in which the board acted on a first complaint. It had followed proper procedures in notifying O Ceallaigh her and inviting her comments.
However, he said the board failed to comply with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice on three other complaints. Ms O Ceallaigh was not notified that those complaints were to go to the committee.
Dr Forde said the board did not conduct sufficient inquiries into the allegations against Ms O Ceallaigh before it secured a temporary High Court order in August last year preventing her practising as a nurse. This was later modified.
The board, in its reply, claimed its decision to apply for an inquiry did not represent any conclusion about the truth of the allegations. Ms O Ceallaigh would have ample opportunity to contest them. The board also said no damage had been caused to Ms O Ceallaigh's reputation. The application for an inquiry did not threaten her livelihood.
Ms Barbara Hewson, for Ms O Ceallaigh, read an affidavit from her client in which Ms O Ceallaigh said she and the mothers who wished to have their children at home feared that what had prompted "the unfounded allegations" against her was "antipathy to home births".
She said the first allegation concerned a woman whom she had referred to one of the maternity hospitals. O Ceallaigh said It was extraordinary that more than three months elapsed between the incident and the making of the complaint. The complaint had been made against the mother's wishes.
The second allegation concerned a woman admitted to the same hospital who had twins, one stillborn, Ms O Ceallaigh said. She was not the midwife responsible for that mother and was brought in at the request of the midwife in charge.
She said two more complaints were made by an executive of another maternity hospital about two mothers whom she had advised to transfer to hospital.
O Ceallaigh said. In an affidavit, Mr Eugene O'Donoghue, the board's chief executive, said it was conscious the High Court orders sought by the board were likely to have a serious impact on Ms O Ceallaigh's career while in force. For that reason, such orders were only sought in the most exceptional cases.
Ms O Ceallaigh's case was considered at great length by the board when all four cases first came before it last July. Particular consideration was given to the cumulative number of complaints and their similarity.
He said the board considered Ms O Ceallaigh ought to have taken steps to have the mother in each case transferred to hospital more speedily. It also took into account the identity of the complainants and that Ms O Ceallaigh had not furnished, when requested, any substantive response to the first complaint.
Mr O'Donoghue said, on the High Court order sought against Ms O Ceallaigh, that it had been open to her to apply to the court on 24 hours' notice to seek to set aside its order. She had not done this.
He said the board had acted in a proper manner. Having regard to her inconclusive response to the first complaint and the prospect of indefinite delay in getting a response, Mr O'Donoghue said he believed the board would not have been discharging its statutory duty had it not made its application to the High Court.
The hearing continues today.