TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 15 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Column: Don’t just blame the Catholic Church for symphysiotomies – blame the doctors

Catholic fundamentalism goes some way towards explaining the mid-set of obstetricians who performed the barbaric surgery, but it is not the entire story, writes Ruadhán Mac Aodháin.

Ruadhán Mac Aodháin

OVER THE PAST seven days, the campaign for justice for survivors of symphysiotomy made national news as the Survivors of Symphysiotomy organisation and their members went on television, radio and appeared before the Oireachtas to tell their stories.

Unquestionably, Theresa Devoy’s account on Tonight with Vincent Browne last Tuesday evening of her abuse at the hands of medical practitioners in St Luke’s Hospital Kilkenny captured the public’s attention. Theresa’s story brought home the true horrors of this barbaric and destructive operation whereby she was allowed to remain in labour for four days, begged to see a doctor, ignored, finally operated upon and awoke, unable to move.

Symphysiotomy is a childbirth operation that severs one of the main pelvic joints, sundering the pubic bones and unhinging the pelvis. The operation never succeeded in gaining acceptance from the medical profession and was seen as a surgery of last resort, to be done only in an emergency. By the 1920s in England, Caesarean section was well established as the norm for difficult births; and by the end of the 1930s, Irish obstetricians had caught up with their English colleagues––and the rest of the world–– in this area of practice.

The National Maternity Hospital revived symphysiotomy in 1944, and the surgery quickly spread to the Coombe. The operation bordered on clandestine, with no information given to patients before or after surgery. No case of informed consent exists. Control of women’s reproductive health appeared to be the goal: obstetricians were hostile to family planning for ideological reasons.

Believing that repeat C-sections would inevitably lead to women to opt for fewer children, obstetricians arbitrarily revived this mutilating surgery without any concern, seemingly, for the damage wrought by the operation on their patients, damage amply described in the medical literature. The injuries sustained vary, but most of the women were left with truly horrific injuries, including life-long pain, walking difficulties and incontinence.

Symphysiotomy continued long after the Church’s influence had diminished

Much has been written in the media about symphysiotomy, its consequences for survivors, and, most of all, the role played by Catholic ideology and the Church in this particular institutional abuse. While Catholic fundamentalism goes some way towards explaining the mind-set of obstetricians, it is not the entire story.

The practice of performing symphysiotomy without consent continued until the late 1980s, a long time after the Church’s influence had diminished. Survivor testimony strongly suggests that hospitals, such as our Lady of Lourdes in Drogheda, performed this brutal procedure for training purposes. Irish hospitals, such as the National Maternity Hospital, had sought to establish themselves internationally as medical training centres since the 1940s. For hospitals, such as the Lourdes, bent on perfecting the surgery for missionary hospitals and clinics in Africa and elsewhere, symphysiotomy was a triple whammy, offering clinical material – patients’ bodies – for experimentation and training, as well as ensuring women would not have to address the issue of birth control.

The fact that doctors there continued to perform symphysiotomies on young mothers covertly right into the 1980s, ignoring the destructive effects of the surgery and exercising this policy of pelvis cutting without consent, in the full knowledge that C-sections were the obstetrical norm for difficult births, beggars belief.

The many failures of the Walsh Report

16/6/2012 Symphysiotomy at the Dail

Members of the Survivors of Symphysiotomy campaign group outside the Oireachtas last week. (Photo: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland)

Issues such as medical training, obstetric power and regulatory failure, which are at the heart of the history of symphysiotomy, have been largely ignored in the recently leaked Walsh Report. The Walsh Report, commissioned by the Department of Health without reference to survivors of symphysiotomy, has effectively sought to justify the procedure in 95 per cent of cases, and blame the Catholic Church for the others, those done in the aftermath of Caesarean section.

There are many false conclusions reached in this most defective and distorted work. Firstly, the claim that symphysiotomy was carried out in emergencies is inaccurate and untrue. It is clear from patient records, theatre reports and the accounts of survivors themselves that symphysiotomy was an elective and planned operation. If the author, Oonagh Walsh, had factored survivors into her study, she would have been unable to reach this wrong conclusion. Instead of interviewing 150 key witnesses (survivors), the author selected data derived from proponents of this destructive surgical practice.

Conveniently, the Walsh Report blames Catholic law, claiming that obstetricians carried out the operation to avoid the supposed dangers of repeat C-sections that were alleged to be unavoidable due to the non-availability of contraceptives.This argument is as defective as it is tortuous. Repeat C-sections were practised from the 1940s onwards by other doctors in Ireland, as in other countries, without difficulty; and family size was falling by then, with or without the aid of contraceptives. More fundamentally, as underlined in Kearney v McQuillan, and contrary to what the Walsh Report implies, the issue of family planning was for the mother, not the doctor, to decide.

The Walsh Report fundamentally fails to address the core issue of patient consent, which was neither sought nor given. The carrying out of surgery without consent has been unlawful for over one hundred years. A doctor who performs an act of surgery without consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages. The right to determine what shall be done with one’s body is a fundamental right. Patients were denied their right to refuse surgery: these operations were therefore illegal. They also breached women’s constitutional and human rights.

Why the statute of limitations should be lifted for the survivors

The findings of the Walsh report lie four-square with the myths that have been spun about symphysiotomy since 1999 by the Department of Health,which has allowed itself to be captured by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on this issue. For over a decade, the two bodies have denied, delayed and obfuscated, stymying survivors’ campaign for truth and justice. Successive Ministers for Health have refused to initiate an independent inquiry, while the Institute of Obstetricians has issued statements which included the benefits of symphysiotomy.

Last Wednesday Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SoS) met the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, looking for the statute of limitations to be lifted to gain access to the courts. For many survivors, the justice system administered by our courts is their only option if they wish to hold their abusers to account.

The primary obstacle facing survivors in accessing our courts are time-based procedural issues under the statute of limitations and arguments around delay. An inherent defect in our legal system is the absence of discretion in cases, such as these, where justice demands that plaintiffs be allowed to bypass the statute of limitations. This is particularly problematic for victims of institutional abuse, who may be unable to to come to terms with it within the time frame demanded by statute. The Oireachtas temporarily lifted the statute of limitations in 2000 to allow child abuse victims in residential institutions to initiate legal actions. SoS is now seeking the same legislative intervention.

As the Department of Health has signally failed these women, it is up to our TDs and Senators to to take responsibility. Further delay in this matter is unthinkable, given the advanced age of most survivors. If the Oireachtas implements this relatively simple legislation to amend the statute and allow these women access to our courts, the truth of this ghastly chapter in the history of institutional abuse in Ireland may yet be told.

Ruadhán Mac Aodháin is a practising barrister and adviser to Survivors of Symphysiotomy. Ruadhán has acted in a number of major constitutional cases including Pearse Doherty’s successful by-election challenge against the Government of Ireland in 2010 and most recently the Referendum Commission case.

Read the draft Walsh report in full here >

Column: Symphysiotomy was seen as a gateway to childbearing without limits >

Read next:

Comments (17 Comments)

  • I was a medical student in the ’70ties at NUIG. Fairly aware and honours OBGYN.
    A fundamentalist Prof OBGYN.

    What an astonishing regime of Stalinist secrecy-no one on the NUIG Faculty ever even mentioned this procedure.

    In fact,I have OBGYN colleagues (from Ireland) who were unaware also until the disclosures over the past several years. The evasions in the Walsh report are deeply shocking and an ethical atrocity.

    All the horror we have for genital mutilation by some Islamic and Christian sects in Africa and to know now that an equally or even more profound mutilation (I need more time on this) was going on in Ireland is an apocalypse.

    The column is correct-the physicians are responsible in the same way the Nazi physician,Mengele,was responsible.

    The response of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is an enormous disgrace and makes this organization complicit in this savage and barbaric assualt on women. The Institute should know that Irish physicians around the world are acting to delegitimize IOG because of its’ defense of this extraordinary crime.

    Reply
    • The Walsh Report says ‘records confirmed no symphysiotomies’ at UCHG––as though the absence of medical records could prove anything––yet one woman was injured catastrophically there following the surgery. Seosamh is right: this was genitally wounding surgery that was involuntary. No laws or ethos forced doctors to sunder a mother’s pelvis in childbirth: those who chose not to in Ireland have yet to speak, however. One of Walsh’s key arguments rests on an uncritical acceptance of a society moulded by patriarchy and warped by paternalism, yet, as Mr Justice Sean Ryan recognised, the issue of family limitation––which Walsh wrongly equates with artificial birth control–– was for a woman to decide, not her doctor. Finally, while the Institute of Obstetricians has been veiling this abusive surgery since 2001, maybe the laurel should yet go to the Department of Health, which has stood four square with Irish obstetrics on this issue for over a decade.

      Reply
  • I wish those ladies the best of luck in their search for justice, but they won’t get any justice in Ireland! Hope they don’t suffer the same abuse as survivors of Ireland’s industrial schools suffered and continue to suffer!

    Reply
  • So does this mean that Irish doctors then proceeded to mutilate and assault women in Africa and other catholic missions by performing this procedure that they were initially trained to do in Ireland?

    Reply
    • Before the advent of Caesarean sections, symphiosotomy was sometimes the safest option in a difficult birth. This is because without a sterile operating space, and the availabliity of post-operative anit-biotics, the mother stands a higher risk of death from infection from a C section.
      Given that these medical missionaries were going out to practice in countries where, unfortunately, the medical facilities were almost non-existent and access to anti-biotics limited, it was not unreasonable that they were expected to perform symphiosotomies. That’s the grossly unfair and unjust world we still live in.
      What is unacceptable was that in a first-world country, they pretended they were in a third world country, just so they could practice for when they got there. They did this at the expense of the health of innocent women. What’s more, on order to make sure they’d done enough practice, they performed symphiosotomies where there wasn’t even indication for Caesaeran section. Your chance of undergoing the procedure had less to do with obstetic complications and more to do with your standing in society.
      How did the Medical Misssionaries justify this to themselves? My guess is that they figured that they’d save lives by sending out doctors well-trained in symphiosotomy. In this respect, they were probably right. But how they managed to conduct this training is where they went wrong. They thought the ends justified the means, and their thinking was based on the assumption that the less-well-off were not quite deserving of human respect. Add to this a society that thought women’s chief role was the bearing of children.
      I can’t answer your question, but it is one worth posing. On arriving in Africa, did doctors restrict the practice to where it was justified in the absence of safe C-sections? Or did they continue to hone their skills on unsuspecting victims?

      Reply
  • Ruadhán cannot be unaware that the senior management and medical staff who enabled this operation to be used in the 70s and 80s were trained and indoctrinated in the era before the the Church influence was diminished.

    Reply
    • The purpose of the article was not to exculpate the Church or to downplay Catholic ideological motivations. There was an unfortunate headline attached to the article, which I had no part in. If you read the article carefully, along with the Walsh Report, you will see that the primary focus of the column is to debunk the myth created by the IOG that somehow obstetricians had no choice but perform such a barbaric operation because of Catholic laws that ruled this country. This is a false and misleading statement, which is designed to justify the unjustifiable.

      Reply
  • The Catholic Church’s influence had lessened by the 1980s? Had it? The main reason this procedure was introduced was because c-sections were thought to promote the usage of contraception. And the church was opposed to that. The Church and the doctors involved should shoulder equal amounts of blame. Barbaric.

    Reply
    • In a way I can understand Mr MacAodhain’s point. To blame the church let’s the arrogant obstetricians and gynecologists off the hook. Their behaviour towards the women they put through this barbaric procedure is, quite frankly, disgusting. These women were mutilated without consent or explanation in the aftermath. It’s assault and abuse and the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists along with the Dept of Health are happy to push the blame onto the catholic church than on them because they think it lets them off the hook.

      Reply
    • Martin
      The procedure was favoured by the Roman Church because it was believed to enable the woman to have multiple births without having her ability to repeatedly produce children restricted by limited number of caesarian sections women at the time could have. The Roman Church had a policy of encouraging large catholic families in the interest of expanding it’s numbers.
      Furthermore, caesarian section also constituted a form of abortion in some cases (hysterotomy abortion) rendering the procedure even more unacceptable in the Roman Church eyes.

      Reply
  • I’m always amazed and frustrated how the religious apologists never accept that there are consequences in promoting evidence denial. Suicide bombers is never about Islam, wide spread child abuse is never about rampant religion even though religious Ireland largely ignored it, Mutilation of girls genitalia is never about religion although it only ever happens in religious and superstitious countries. The oppression of women is never about religion even though all the Judeo christian texts preach the subjugation of women. Imprisoning people accused of blasphemy or sorcery is never about religion. People then wonder why I cant take their argument seriously. If religion is the opium of the people then the religious must understand that secular evidence based society must prevail over their addiction to the irrational as it has consequences for everyone.

    Reply
  • Quote:
    ”Issues such as medical training, obstetric power and regulatory failure, which are at the heart of the history of symphysiotomy, have been largely ignored in the recently leaked Walsh Report.”

    What has been largely ignored in this article is that medical training WAS under the control of the Roman Catholic influenced Schools of Obstretics and ‘obstretic power’ (?) WAS in the hands of it’s conservative Roman Catholic instructors who passed on the arrogance of their convictions to their students. Regulatory power was equally influenced by the same arrogant Roman Church ethos in that public servants charged with the responsibility of ensuring that medical practices were in line with international norms were more content to ignore this in the interest of following the prevailing RC culture.
    The fact, acknowledged by the author, that hospitals such as the National Maternity and the Lourdes in Drogheda had notions of being centres of excellence for the preparation of practitioners for the performance of this procedures in missionary Africa just goes to illustrate what influence Roman Church ethos had in the experimentation on and permanent mutilation of these women.
    This article appears to me to be a very well written account of the injustices meted out to these women and the legal inequities involved but is completely self-contradictory in-so-far as asserting where the blame truly lies.

    Reply
  • This is a false dichotomy. Both the church and the doctors are to blame.

    Reply
  • In my opinion , for what it is worth, maternity hospitals are still not places where women are treated well or where they or their children’s fundamental human rights are properly inforced. I’ve seen both sides onthe coin two home births with independent midwives, two hospital births in national maternity hospital and the Coombes, and finally a home birth with the domino midwives. The hospitals were both such a shock, and if I hadn’t been luck enough to have had two home births first I do not know how I would have coped. So although I know that hospitals were Infulenced by the catholic church in the past and they went very much hand in hand, most hospitals are still stuck on their old practices and seem unable to change their ways of doing things.

    Reply
  • Same difference; catholic church and the medical profession are addicted to controlling people’s lives

    Reply
  • Well said Cyril.

    Reply
  • I agree with Ruadhan in the points he raised. If you want to blame someone- all you have to do is blame hte Church- we have seen the sad news of 200 children who died in state care over the past 10 years- It they deaths had taken place in Church schools, there would have been a total uproar. These deaths took place in State care and we, as a nation, have to realise that we cannot blame anyone else!
    A level of maturity is needed in these debates and a shift away from blaming the Church for everything.

    Reply

Add New Comment