http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=1921
Irishhealth.com
June 21, 2001
The Woods controversy explained
by Fergal Bowers, Editor
It is likely to be late this
year before the Medical Council rules on whether social campaigner, Dr Moira
Woods is guilty or not of professional misconduct in relation to allegations of
child sexual abuse she made against five Irish families.
This unprecedented case has its roots in events in the mid to late 80s. It was
around this time that the true nature and extent of child sexual abuse came to
light in this country. However, it was not until 1987 that the Department of
Health published official guidelines for health workers on detecting and
dealing with child sex abuse.
However, well before this time, there were discussions involving the Department
of Health and the Rotunda Hospital on setting up a sexual assault treatment
unit. It followed newspaper reports of claims that rape victims had been badly
treated and concern over Ireland's growing problem of child sex abuse.
The Sexual Assault Treatment Unit opened at the Rotunda Hospital in 1985. Dr
Woods became the senior doctor there.
Taken into care
Where child sex abuse is confirmed, the impact on all parties is devastating.
Children are removed from families by the health board and taken into care.
Those against whom the abuse allegations are made may face criminal charges. In
this controversy, none of the fathers were ever charged with abuse.
This controversy over claims that false allegations were made of child sexual
abuse involving 11 children from five families dates back to the late 80s. At
the heart of the issue is whether Dr Woods met the standards that would have
been expected of other doctors at the time in this field. We will only know the
answer to that question when the outcome of the inquiry is known.
Today, the Medical Council is due to hear final submissions and then its
Fitness to Practise Committee will retire for some time to consider the
evidence. Many of the families have come to Dublin today to hear the
proceedings close.
The abuse allegations in this controversy were initially made by social workers
and in one case, it is understood that five children from one family were taken
into care. In cases where children were taken into care, they were later
returned to their families, but it took years for this to happen in some
instances. In many cases, the families initiated legal action to get their children
back. That is the scale of the matters at the heart of this controversy.
Dr Woods has strenuously denied all allegations of professional misconduct and
has argued that her actions were clinically justified.
First complaints
The first complaints were made to the Medical Council in 1992 by one family.
But it was to be another four years before the Council decided that there was a
prima facie case for the holding of a full inquiry. It took another three years
to get to a preliminary hearing - the one and only such hearing in public and
in front of the media. The full inquiry proper began in October 1999.
Arising from a High Court ruling, the inquiry has been held in private and the
identities of the parties can not be made public. However, the court did give
the Council the power to publish a full report at the end, with the identities
of the families protected.
In an unusual move, the Medical Council had wanted the inquiry to be held in
public. However, one of the health boards objected, essentially on the grounds
that family law matters previously held in camera (in private) were at issue.
The High Court accepted this argument.
Much of the delay in the hearing commencing arose from a stream of legal
actions.
Over time, all of the families involved became known to eachother and most have
campaigned as a group.
The Medical Council is the policing body for Irish doctors. It examines
allegations of misconduct or fitness to practise. The self-regulating body has
sweeping powers, similar to the High Court. The proceedings of an inquiry are
similar to that of a court room. The registrar of the Medical Council presents
the 'prosecution' case and is aided by lawyers. Dr Woods had her legal team
argue for her side, the 'defence'.
The case is heard by the Council's Fitness to Practise committee, a group of
around seven people - all members of the Medical Council - doctors and lay
people.
At the end of an inquiry, the report of the FTPC and its recommendations go to
a full meeting of the Medical Council. It can decide to clear a doctor, attach
conditions to the way they work in the future, suspend them from their practice
or strike them off the register.
A doctor has 21 days in which to challenge any such decision by the Council in
the High Court.
Health boards
This controversy involves not only Dr Woods, but the Rotunda Hospital's Sexual
Assault Treatment Unit where she was head. It also involves two health boards
where the families concerned live in. A large number of witnesses, including
international experts, gave evidence.
Since this matter emerged, we have seen legislation to grant health workers and
indeed the public immunity from being sued if they report, in good faith, cases
of suspected child abuse. That legislation predates these events. Also, the
government has promised a White Paper on mandatory reporting of child abuse and
has committed itself to bringing in legislation to cater for this.
Since the events in this case sparked the inquiry, a raft of new child care
legislation has come into force. Today, there is better protection and
detection of child sexual abuse.
Depending on the outcome of this controversy, the health service and state
agencies could be facing an unprecedented lawsuit from the families concerned.
The Medical Council now has to wade through thousands of documents and evidence
to come to its decision. The families, Dr Woods and the public must wait a
little longer to hear the verdict.