A decision by the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to suspend strike notice for seven days, so that the Department of Health can clarify certain legal and technical issues, is a welcome development. But it should never have come to this.
Hopefully, prudence will now prevail. Vulnerable patients should not be used as an industrial battering-ram by hospital consultants who were abandoned by the British-based Medical Defence Union (MDU) and placed in financial jeopardy by the actions of the Department of Health. Issues have to be resolved by the parties, but that should be done by way of negotiation or through the courts.
There has been an element of brinkmanship and inter-union competition in all of this. Two weeks ago, the larger Irish Hospital Consultants' Association (IHCA) decided that undertakings given by Tánaiste Mary Harney and the Government in relation to medical indemnity were sufficient. And it called off industrial action. The IMO, which had not met the Tánaiste at that time, was not satisfied. Now it is seeking greater legal certainty for members who have been - or may be - denied insurance cover by the MDU.
It would be a public relations disaster if the IMO engaged in strike action at this time, especially as the larger union has accepted Government assurances that consultants will not be left without cover in medical malpractice claims and that patients will also be compensated. A strike could affect up to 50,000 outpatient and elective surgery appointments per week and it would throw the entire hospital system into chaos. Rather than go down that route, consultants should join with the Government in ensuring that the MDU meets as much of its historic insurance liabilities as possible.
The unilateral withdrawal of insurance cover by the MDU has been severely criticised by the courts. It is unlikely that the MDU will be permitted to walk away from its historic liabilities in this State. Estimates of the sums involved have ranged from €70 million to €400 million. It is important that taxpayers be protected from such exposure, especially at a time when compensation for nursing-home pensioners who had money illegally deducted could run into hundreds of millions of euro.
This dispute over historic insurance liability - and its handling by the Department of Health - has already seriously damaged Government plans for the reform and development of our health services. The introduction of a State-run insurance scheme 13 months ago, in the absence of agreement with the MDU on historic liabilities, caused hospital consultants to withdraw all co-operation. The Hanly reforms were stalled, as were proposals for the working hours and remuneration of junior hospital doctors. A new common contract for consultants was put on ice. And the appointment of extra hospital consultants was delayed. This is an administrative shambles of the Department's own making and it requires urgent action. Ms Harney had better get a grip.