Paul Murphy: Calls for Broad Probe into CHI Surgical Failures
Paul Murphy addressed state failures at CHI and urged that reviews be child, patient and family centred. He called for broad, expansive look‑backs following the Nyagam report and questioned why adults and other specialities have been excluded.
Main demands
He said reviews must centre patients, children and families and have those voices at the heart of the process. He argued that confidence in reviews depends on family involvement and on taking an expansive rather than restrictive approach.
Scope of the look‑back
Murphy criticised the current look‑back as too narrow, noting it covers surgeries between 2016 and 2023 and includes spinal limb reconstruction and surgical dislocation of the hip but excludes trauma and general orthopaedics. He said orthopaedic surgeons have requested expansion to cover all surgeries and warned that limiting the review risks repeat failures.
Concerns about the surgeon
He highlighted serious red flags identified in the Nyagam report, including a surgeon who reportedly inserted non‑medical grade springs into children and whose cases led Nyagam to recommend reviewing two‑thirds of his cases. He noted there is a Medical Council investigation into the surgeon and questioned the rationale for narrowing the look‑back.
International registration and accountability
Murphy raised questions about how the surgeon could be registered to practise in Maryland, citing a parliamentary answer that no fitness to practise certificate had been issued. He asked whether the Board of Physicians in Maryland has been contacted and said the state has a duty of care to ensure relevant information is shared internationally.
Broader reviews and families' access to information
He pressed whether the Farrell review or scoping exercise will be broad enough to include general practice, methods of practice, and waiting lists that may have been used to pressure surgeons. He also backed calls that all relevant information should be made available to families to avoid an unfair playing field and to ensure transparency.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thanks, Ken Corlett. I mostly want to focus on some specifics and some particular questions, but just start with some general points which shape the particulars. The most obvious general point made by many is that this is a heartbreaking scandal. It's awful that so many children have been failed in this way, Harvey and Harvey's family amongst them. But it's a horrendous failure by the state. Now we have a process of various reviews, reports, lookbacks into the various medical failures at CHI. So what should shape those reviews? What sort of general overall approach? I think there's two things that are key. One, again, it's emphasised again and again, it should be patient, it should be child, it should be family centred. It needs to have their voices at the heart of it. They need to shape the process in order to have confidence in it. The second point I would make is that it needs to be, where there's a decision to be made about going broad or narrow, we need to go broad in terms of being expansive and covering all potential issues. Because otherwise there's a real danger that these various reviews won't get fully to the bottom of the problems and then they'll have to be repeated again. And I think that should be the guiding principle is to take in more patients as opposed to trying to exclude patients. So to move on to particulars, to start with the look back, which flows from the Nyagam report. So this is a surgeon who, when Nyagam looked at his cases, he said, OK, we need to review two thirds of the cases that he was involved in. It's the same surgeon who was responsible for inserting non-medical grade springs, which he had got himself, into children. So we have some very, very serious red flags. There's currently a Medical Council investigation into him. The question is, why then is the look back quite narrow, contrary to the request of the orthopaedic surgeons? So the look back is on surgeries between 2016 and 2023. It will include all spinal limb reconstruction and surgical dislocation of the hip, but not surgeries in the area of trauma and general orthopaedics. As I understand, many, all orthopaedic surgeons have made a request that this should be expanded to cover all surgeries. And that has been denied with this more narrow view. Like, when we have a number of, I mean, red flags, I think, red flags understates what these are about a surgeon. Like, why are we having an approach of limiting it to only some areas of speciality? And linked to that, why are we excluding adults? I've been raising this for years now, because I was contacted by an adult, won't give any of the details, because it would reveal their identity, but an adult who was convinced that they were wrongly pressurised to have a surgery by Connor Green, and which was a disaster. You know, that may or may not be accurate if you go and have a look back, but I don't understand why adults have been excluded. I don't understand why other specialities have been excluded. If we have someone who is acting in this way as a rogue surgeon, well, then why do we assume that it's only happening in these areas of speciality as opposed to others? The related point I've raised in parliamentary questions over the last few months, I raised in a Taoiseach's question a few weeks ago, I think the Minister is absolutely aware, is like, how come this surgeon is registered to practice in Maryland? It seems, it seems, so as I understand it, in order to get registered in another country, you would need to have a fitness to practice certificate, and from a PQ answer, I understand there is no fitness to practice certificate, none has been issued. So, how is this surgeon potentially operating on patients in America, and has the government contacted the Board of Physicians in Maryland to say, wait a minute, there's some very important information that you should be aware of, do we not have a duty of care in relation to that? Also, in relation to the Niagam report, if the Minister can confirm just that an injunction has been sought, presumably this is still going through the courts. Then I'd also, just in terms of the review, the Farrell review or scoping exercise, I mean, my main point would be that, is it going to be broad? Is it going to include the general practice, is it going to include the method by this, is it going to include the waiting list, which then were used to pressurise, or were a part of pressure on surgeons to do operations, and so on. And the points that Deputy Coppinger has made, in terms of all of the information being made available to the families, because otherwise it's a very unfair playing field. Thank you, Daly.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
