The failure to carry out an ultra scan on a woman who was 29 weeks pregnant and had ruptured membranes in the National Maternity Hospital in 1992 has been described as "inexplicable" by an English medical expert in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Ronald W. Taylor, a professor in obstetrics and gynaecology, said a scan would have ascertained the "lie of the baby" once the mother's ruptured membranes were confirmed.
Prof Taylor was giving evidence on the seventh day of the hearing of a claim for damages brought on behalf of Blaise Gallagher (6), suing by his mother, Mrs Avril Gallagher, of Moneystown, Roundwood, Co Wicklow.
It is alleged there was negligence on the part of the NMH, Holles Street, Dublin, and Dr Joseph Stanley, an obstetrician, relating to the circumstances of Blaise's birth on April 27th, 1992. The defence denies negligence. Blaise was born by Caesarean section two days after Mrs Gallagher was admitted to the NMH in the 29th week of her pregnancy. He suffers from cerebral palsy and is quadriplegic. In court yesterday, Prof Taylor said the wrong choice of Caesarean operation had been carried out on Mrs Gallagher. He said he had sympathy with what happened.
The surgeon who carried out the operation (not Dr Stanley) may not have seen a "classical Caesarean" operation which should have been performed, the witness said. Had this operation been carried out, the baby would have been lifted out very easily and that would probably have saved about five minutes, he said. The procedure which was carried out was not acceptable. The impact of the type of operation carried out must have made some difference to Blaise, the witness said. The longer a baby went without a heartbeat (Blaise was born without a heartbeat), the more brain damage he would suffer. Prof Taylor said he thought the type of operation contributed significantly but was not entirely responsible for the damage to the baby. At 29 weeks, it was likely to be of the order of 2530 per cent that the presentation of a baby was likely to be "breach" and that the babies would have "flexed legs". Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the child, said Dr Stanley did seek a scan but it never occurred. Prof Taylor said he would not have expected Dr Stanley to have carried out the scan himself.
The fact that the hospital had the facilities to carry out a scan made it less explicable, said Prof Taylor. Mr Nesbitt said that, for understandable reasons, Dr Stanley had not been available on Saturday, April 25th, and somebody was working in his place. By 8 p.m. that day, he had contacted the hospital and asked for an ultra scan the following day.
Mr Sean Ryan SC, for the hospital authorities, said there was an assumption being made by Mr Nesbitt that Dr Stanley gave an order for a scan. He understood the nurses' note had recorded Dr Stanley's intention for an ultra scan.
The hearing continues today.