Experts and public figures have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s newly launched scheme for women making symphysiotomy claims.
The government has recently launched a scheme to help women claim symphysiotomy compensation. The compensation is for operations performed between 1940 and 1980 on the women without them providing adequate consent. It is estimated that nearly three hundred and fifty women are able to apply for the scheme. The scheme follows after the government changed its stance extending the Statute of Limitations such that women who had unknowingly undergone the procedure during labour could claim compensation.
The symphysiotomy compensation scheme works on a three-tier basis, based on the severity of the injuries that the women sustained. Those who did not sustain any long-term damage are entitled to claim €50,000. Women who sustained a recorded disability because of the procedure can claim €100,000, and those who had previously had a Caesarean Section, and then had a symphysiotomy performed upon them can receive €150,000.
Maureen Harding-Clark, a former High Court judge has been appointed by the government to oversee each claim. The deadline by which the claims must be submitted is December 5th of this year. However, this deadline can be extended by a further twenty days should Judge Harding-Clark deem the case exceptional.
Claimants have another twenty days to accept any offer of compensation after an offer has been made. However, to do this, any action against the state must first be withdrawn by the claimant.
There are presently over one-hundred-and-fifty High Court actions for symphysiotomy claims on progress. However, dates for only two of the hearings have been confirmed. Marie O’Connor, head of Survivors of Symphysiotomy, has expressed her dissatisfaction with the new scheme as the time limit makes it “impossible for women to seek independent advice and to make a considered decision”.
The Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Mark Kelly, is also dissatisfied with the scheme. He claims that it contradicts the state’s obligations to human rights by not addressing compensation needs for each individual and treating them on this tiered basis. Additionally, the compensation is being paid out without any admission by the state of their liability and without an apology being offered to the women affected.