A mother has told the High Court that, had she been told while she was in labour that there was something wrong with her baby , she would have "agreed to anything" so the child would be okay. She could not recall being told her child needed to be delivered, she said.
Michelle Gilroy was giving evidence in an action for damages brought on behalf of her son, Paul Fitzpatrick, against the National Maternity Hospital arising from alleged negligence in the circumstances of her son's birth on December 26th, 2001.
The boy, her first born, is mentally and physically handicapped because of the alleged negligence. The hospital has denied the claims and has pleaded negligence on the part of Ms Gilroy, alleging that she had delayed delivery by refusing to undergo a cutting procedure, an episiotomy.
Yesterday, Ms Gilroy, who is pregnant with her second child and is due to give birth in the next few weeks, gave evidence during which, at times, she became clearly upset.
She told the court that when she was in labour with Paul on December 26th, 2001, she was told the baby was tired but she could not recall being told the baby needed to be delivered.
She said she had wanted a natural birth without an epidural. She said there was no mention of a forceps in the half hour before her son was born. "If anyone at the time I was in labour had told me anything was wrong with the baby, I would have done anything so he would be okay, whatever they wanted to do," she told Mr Justice Daniel Herbert. "I would have agreed to anything."
Asked by Charles Meenan SC, for the hospital, whether she would have agreed to an episiotomy if she were told the baby needed to be delivered, Ms Gilroy said she would have done so if the baby was going to be okay.
Paul, through Ms Gilroy, of St Catherine's Close, Carman's Hall, Dublin, is alleging negligence against the hospital. It is claimed that, had Paul been delivered some 20 minutes earlier than he was, he would not have sustained the serious injuries alleged.
It is claimed the word "distress" was not used when Ms Gilroy was told her baby needed to be delivered. It appeared it was the policy of the hospital not to use that word, it was alleged.
The hospital was negligent, it is claimed, in that it failed to act upon the deterioration of the boy's foetal heart trace at 6.30am on the morning of the delivery and failed to stop the use of the delivery accelerant drug, Oxytocin. It is also claimed there was a failure to carry out a second foetal blood sample to check the condition of the baby, failure to perform a Caesarean section and failure to inform the mother the baby was in distress and needed to be delivered immediately.
The NMH denies the claims and pleads that Ms Gilroy herself was guilty of negligence and had delayed delivery by not consenting to the episiotomy procedure and also in refusing to receive forceps assistance in the delivery of her son.
It also claims Ms Gilroy delayed the progress of and/or management of labour by not consenting to Oxytocin being administered until 4.30am in circumstances where it was sought to administer it at 2.45am.
The case continues today.