It has to be anonymised. Any fitness to practice trials, or trials against the hospital, that may arise from this would be impacted upon if the medics were named.
In the case of septicaemia the HSE is actually going about this the right way. A public enquiry into Ms Praveen’s death is wholly unnecessary given that the COD is a rather simple one (and has already been defined as COD through postmortem), therefore all that needs to be investigated is surroundings of death. Also, couple that with the fact that you maybe sure that if it comes to a choice between legislating for terminating and hanging a medic out, I’d imagine the hanging is more appetising to the government than the legislation. Fear not, if a doctor is at fault there won’t be a person who won’t know about it.

Biggins
Who is the Irish Health Executive.?

@ James Connolly.

I have to disagree with you.

We should have having a full proper inquiry and not (once again) trying to hide away names in connection to what was done and not done. The husband and her/his family deserve full answers and who is responsible – not half answers.

If there is to be charges later – the names and a good bulk of investigations done, will already have been collected and collated.
Should we be once again holding a lengthy expensive investigation of all the facts and people to discover that we need later again, yet another lengthy expensive investigation of all the facts and people so that more charges can be brought?
Besides the delays upon delays which would drag on for months if not years, the eventual expensive cost of all these multiple investigations will like previous tribunals as we have all seen, turn into an unfunny joke and farce!

You say “A public enquiry into Ms Praveen’s death is wholly unnecessary” – I completely disagree for many reasons – so does a great deal of the public I suspect, the family involved certainly don’t agree with you. They have every right to have no faith in the organisation that might be even partly responsible for the death of their daughter/wife/relative – and then see that org investigate itself? Are we for real?

This investigation has (like it or not) become a visible joke on the world stage!

Hi Biggins. The idea that there will be a cover up by the consultants is a fear that shouldn’t exist. The enquiry is chaired by an international expert, and the other 6 are independent experts in their relative fields.
A public enquiry is akin to a tribunal, and those as we know take far too long to carry out in this country. While the public enquiry is ongoing, evidence can be misinterpreted by innocent or not so innocent groups of society. It is important that there is a private enquiry such as the one that is ongoing so that the facts can all be released at the same time, as opposed to the drip of facts that would arise as a result of holding a public enquiry.
All that is required (as is standard practice already) is a medical enquiry to find out whether doctors did any wrong-doing. This is akin to what is happening, and findings will be made available as soon as is feasible.
With respect to naming and shaming doctors or other staff in the report, this is wrong, as if there is any question of wrongdoing on their part they will have their right to due-process surrendered on their behalf, which is wrong, as everybody in this free state has a right to due process, even the guilty.
The organisation is not investigating itself – the national incidents body (The proper name escapes me), has appointed an independent chairperson who has a vast and varied experience in dealing with such cases, and my guess is that once access to relevant materials has been acheived that the investigation will most likely be a quick and thorough one, as is only right so that this man can get on with grieving for his wife and unborn.
I have sad it before – I am not sure if the legal advice that Mr Halapannavar is receiving is the best suited to his current situation, however that is not my call to make.

@ James

You say “With respect to naming and shaming doctors or other staff in the report, this is wrong, as if there is any question of wrongdoing on their part they will have their right to due-process surrendered on their behalf, which is wrong, as everybody in this free state has a right to due process, even the guilty.”

Then how as there been investigations before – even now and those being involved have been named! This excuse of “due-process surrendered” is a load of convenient bunkum!
JUST for example – look at the Saville inquiry in England. People have been named in that are are being investigated. Has one of them claimed their “due-process has been surrendered” ??? Have the police been accused of surrendering it?
Absolute cobblers!

A FULL and clear report detailing EVERYTHING should be made available! The reason why now the HSE wants a whitewashed report is so that the husband and family will have later a much harder case against the HSE when they try to sue the HSE’s asses off! Nothing more!

…And you can be damn sure this case WILL end up in court – and what will happen there? Another yet lengthy investigation will have to happen in order just to attach the appropriate names to the inappropriate actions that was done and not done because of cowardly politicians, religion and medics with no balls!
All information that in this very first report could be sorted and put a family at much ease – as if they are not in enough pain already! – but no, that would be too much to ask!

Look at this case: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1122/1224326952282.html
They (health authorities) in similar circumstances could get this case fast away, quietly quick enough! Was there an investigation for this one? Hell no, the family was all paid off in a remarkable THREE months – and thats bloody seriously fast considering the dreadful slow speed at which our legal people in Ireland work at – and we all know this!

QUOTE““I couldn’t believe the decision [to refuse an abortion in Ireland] when it came,” Ms Harte, who was then 39, told The Irish Times in December 2010. “Apparently my life wasn’t at immediate risk. It just seemed absolutely ridiculous.
Ms Harte’s lawyers served a statement of claim in May 2011 against the HSE, Ireland and the Attorney General. It was settled by July 2011.”

Welcome to Ireland where they either white-wash things or try to make them go away as fast as they can before the public kops on what the hell is going on!

“

James Connolly
It is not illegal in this State to medically intervene in a pregnancy to save the life of the mother even where that intervention results in the death of a foetus. This is standard practice for example in an ectopic pregnancy.

@ Garry. Where it is clear there is a risk to the life of the mother a termination will be performed. Where the mother’s health is being affected but her life is not yet at risk but may be at an undetermined point inthe future then the doctors can choose not to perform a termination on the basis that they may be prosecuted. The law is not clear in this instance.

Hi Garry, I’ve covered this in other threads on thejournal.ie, please have a look there. Rgds, J.

Garry. As I understand it from anyone I know who has had a (tubal) ectopic pregnancy in this state the treatment is a laparotomy and not an abortion.
Even though technically it still is an abortion, it’s a pretty barbaric method.

A laparotomy involves cutting the woman open to remove the pregnancy along with the damaged Fallopian tube and in the cases I know of the ovary was removed too. This was done when the situation became rather serious and the tube was in danger of rupturing and killing the mother.
Contrast that with how this would be treated elsewhere, a drug would be administered inducing a miscarriage and a follow up to ensure everything had been passed.

In countries where abortion is provided the woman gets to keep her reproductive system intact, giving her more chance of conception in future. Over here she must wait until she almost dies before the doctors can do anything, and sacrifice parts of her reproductive system.

Perhaps James can confirm for me whether this is still the case. Most of these experiences are a up to a decade ago, my instinct tells me not much has changed, but I would be glad to hear otherwise.

Yes and no Shanti, and the answer depends on the doctor you ask, I have see both drug induced and surgically induced terminations in Ireland over the last few months, so again, not very clear.
It is extremely important to note that most of the time (approx 98%) the pregnancy occurs in the fallopian tubes, emergency surgery involves removing the fallopian tube the foetus has become embedded in. The woman may still become pregnant again and with appropriate care and attention can go to at 24/28 weeks gestation before intervention, intervention at this point being labour induced and baby being live born.

Thanks for the reply James, I’ve been looking around for a steadfast answer to this and I couldn’t find one either. The experiences of those I know are simply that – not any sort of stated policy, I’m going to hazard a guess that there isn’t a stated policy to be found..

Of course a woman can still conceive and have babies with what is left after the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, but I know personally I’d rather hang onto all my parts. It seems so unnecessary to allow the situation progress to such a dangerous place before stepping in – especially when the chances of carrying to term are practically non existent.. But I also realise that I do not need to be saying that to you! It’s a pity our laws do not care about the health of the mother as well as her life. The news that information may be missing from the files is perhaps a larger concern at this stage.. I know that the maternity hospital I attended got my details wrong but I honestly didn’t think anything of it. Now I wonder if my documents have correct info with regards my surgery!

Alan sympathies on your loss. But did you go to the press about the circumstances of your brothers death or contact HIQA?

If your brother died of septicaemia then an enquiry would have taken place as it is, for all the world, an infection that is contracted through open wound, usually meaning either that the patient was very ill or the staff were careless.
If you didn’t get an enquiry for your brother, then the COD was not septicaemia, and therefore not like this case at all.

@ James, quick question you might be able to answer for me. From Hugh’s article above it seems that the first HIQA knew about Savita death was from reading the papers 3 or so weeks after she died. Are hospitals or the HSE required to notify HIQA in the event of a death or complications during the treatment of a patient?

Alan,

Sorry about your brother but he died NOT due to laws that could and should have been enacted up to 20 years ago (but were not due to political cowards). The reason why the worlds media is all over this is because our laws have been exposed still to be backward and out of date. The reason why the media is all over this is because of religion has once again raised its ugly head and possibly caused the death of a woman in conjunction with far out-dated laws.

Its not because of septicaemia that the world is watching. I’m sorry you don’t see that!

Hi Kerry. No is the short answer. This case would appear to be a standard untreated miscarriage (not to minimise the loss, but I’ll call it as it is). If you don’t treat a miscarriage early enough, similarly if you don’t stop a bleed early enough, infection is contracted, leads to septicaemia, body goes into septic shock and MOF. That’s what it would appear to be in this case, but I don’t know for certain, as I only know what is known through the media. The death would have been reported to the coroners office immediately as it would not be expected a mother would die from a miscarriage, and I believe from other reports that this did happen. A PM took place and the findings of this have been published. This is standard practice.
HIQA is a quality assurance authority, however their remit is not to investigate medics practice, as this falls to the IMC to act upon should the current investigation show that a doctor did not practice in the best interests of the patient.
HIQA do however have a remit for investigation of local procedures, and should the current investigation show that they fall short of standards and guidelines, then it is upto to HIQA to investigate the shortcomings and make recommendations on a local or national basis. I would guess though that the current investigation will provide enough recommendations for the hospital/state to act upon so their remit may very well be over-ridden in this case.
Hope this helps!

Thanks for that James. Most helpful.

cause was the same and was ruled as so in coroners court . No inquiry or investigation at all. Not from hse or any other state agency.

Hi Alan, sorry for your loss. Just to put it into perspective, your brother died of septicaemia, so did this woman. The issue that is at hand here is if she had a procedure which is legal in one law and illegal in another, and had she availed of this procedure would she still be alive today?
If you feel you have a case against the staff/hospital involved I suggest you talk to your solicitor and obtain legal advice RE how to proceed. Your brothers death and Ms Halapannavar’s death are not alike in the least.

the problem here is this has become a soap box for pro life v pro choice . this was one woman . Why no shouting from the streets for all the other men and women who died from complications of similar type.

Sadly, I wasted a bit of my life reading your self interested comment.
A supreme court ruling made 20 years ago needs to be acted on.
There is no debate.
Adding a “nice” comment doesn’t hide your warped thinking.

I agree with your supreme court comment LITTLE JIM so stop getting your knickers in a twist !!

Well said Peter.

Considering it was his decision to make contact with a pro choice organisation and to go public using Savitas name rather than a letter of the alphabet, I do not think he is being exploited. I feel it would be more accurate to say he was calling upon the help and support of those who agree his wife should have been granted a termination when she requested it.