http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=3320
Irishhealth.com
December 12, 2001
Woods Inquiry to rule on release of report
by Fergal Bowers
The
Fitness to Practise Committee (FTPC) of the Medical Council is expected to rule
tomorrow evening on whether the report of the inquiry into allegations of
professional misconduct against Dr Moira Woods should be made public.
It is also due to make a recommendation on whether the report should be
released to the five families that made complaints which led to the inquiry.
It is understood that the FTPC will meet in Dublin at around 7pm tomorrow night
and the complainants may be allowed to attend the legal submissions on
publication and circulation.
The High Court ruled in 1999 that the report could be published by the Medical
Council, once the names of the families and the children involved were kept
confidential.
As exclusively revealed by irishhealth.com late last week, the FTPC has found
Dr Woods guilty of professional misconduct following allegations that she made
false claims of child sexual abuse against a number of individuals.
A well-known social campaigner, Dr Woods was head of the Sexual Assault
Treatment Unit at the Rotunda Hospital.
She has consistently denied the allegations. The full Medical Council will now
meet to consider what penalty, if any, should apply following the report of the
FTPC inquiry. It is open to Dr Woods to challenge any negative finding in the
High Court and to seek a full rehearing of the matter.
Your View
Anonymous
December 12, 2001 14:10
If the healthboard felt there was a justifiable reason for holding this in
private, then the report should not be made public.
Edward(EHernon)
December 15, 2001 00:52
Of course there was justifiable reason for the health boards to have the
Inquiry 'in camera'. The 'in camera' rule is used as a method to silence and
gag those with justifiable complaints and succeeds in shielding professional
misconduct
Anonymous
December 17, 2001 09:54
So Edward, by your statement, you are stating that the judge (who granted
the "in camera order") was also in cohoots with the Healthboard. Your
statement is rather old at this stage and typical of someone who wasn't granted
access to information he required
Anonymous
January 3, 2002 21:01
The judge who granted the EHB the "in camera order" did so on the
basis of sworn affidavits and whilst he did so it was in the "best
interest" of the families involved. No part of my posting could be
construed as stating that the presiding judge was in cahoots with the EHB. This
is pure conjecture on your part and unfounded. It is a fact that the
information required was on the Order of the Fitness to Practise Committee. The
required information was already received by way of discovery. Perhaps
anonymous should look up the recent judgement of Mr Justice O'Neill in the
matter of Hernon v The Information Commissioner. Your recent post is clearly
indicitive of the ideological baggge of the typical "child saver”
Anonymous
January 4, 2002 09:42
If your comment that the "in camera rule gags and shields professional
misconduct", then explain please the ruling in the Woods Inquiry - a
contradiction in terms! Also, your meaning on "child saver" is unknown
- isn't that we are all about