Irishhealth.com
June 21, 2001
Comments posted to Irishhealth.com:
mary(quinlanfam)
Posted: 11/05/2001 13:27
just another cover up in the list of medical scandals
Anonymous
Posted: 12/05/2001 01:08
This issue won't go away.
richard(cahillrj)
Posted: 17/06/2001 18:55
Pity the "in camera" rule upheld! Openness , even at the cost to the
participants ,should have been allowed . The person on trial Dr. Woods , is
known to the public and is subjected to ill-informed speculation .If there is
balance it may only be that the speculation blames and exonerates in equal
parts . Only the stain of blame will stick , even if exonerated . The value of
all the "other" Tribunals is that the pendulum swings with the latest
disclosures .
Edward(edwardh)
Posted: 20/06/2001 22:44
Openness and transparency was and still is the over-riding priority of the
complainants in the Woods Inquiry. The complainants have no fear of public
scrutiny. Four of the five complainants families fought for and won a public
inquiry. Whilst Dr Woods might be on trial so are the complainants. No matter
the outcome of this inquiry , the impact of the past decade will remain with
many of those involved. Perhaps Richard (cahillrj) might elaborate on his claim
that Dr Woods is subjected to ill-informed speculation and by whom?
richard(cahillrj)
Posted: 21/06/2001 11:27
I have been aware of the existence of Dr. Woods as a media personality since
the seventies . In that time I have also been aware of positive and negative .
speculation , to the extent that I have been conditioned to view her as a
controversial personality . I have no information about the complainants except
to say that I am aware of the ongoing Inquiry. I was arguing for openness ( I
have been an advocate for "Letting in the Light"). It is my view ,and
my interest that openness has to be in the public interest and for the public
good . The outcome of this enquiry is of interest to me in this discussion , in
that whatever the result that I am able to assess the decision on the basis of
disclosure of the facts as tested . Philosophically I hope that the outcome
shows clear lessons as to how the sensitive subject of child abuse is conducted
in the future. Edward's wish that I identify the ill informed speculation
misses the fact that I was commenting on the equal effects of media speculation
good and bad , born of an "in camera" enquiry. I do not in any way
implicate the complainants . Finally , I am not even convinced that the Childrens'
Court should be "in camera".Richard Cahill