Health sector must share blame: Coney

By FRANCESCA MOLD

The medical profession has an attitude problem which caused lengthy delays in concerns about former pathologist Michael Bottrill coming to light, says a women's health expert.

Sandra Coney, representing the Women's Health Action Trust at the cervical screening inquiry, said Dr Bottrill had failed the women of Gisborne but many others had to share the responsibility.

She named Tairawhiti Health, the Royal College of Pathologists, the Medical Council, the Government and the Ministry of Health.

"This inquiry has come about because of the collective abdication by health professionals and others who ought to have known of their ethical obligations," she said.

"There was an increasing number of people who knew something was not right but nobody followed it through."

Her comments came after lawyers for pathologist Clinton Teague called on the inquiry to publicly restore his reputation, which they claim has been damaged during the hearings.

Dr Teague has been criticised at the inquiry for allegedly protecting Dr Bottrill rather than putting the health and wellbeing of patients first.

But lawyer Hugh Rennie, QC, said there was no evidence of a breach of professional standards.

"Dr Teague has been subjected, utterly unjustifiably, to personalised attacks in the course of this inquiry ... They represent an abuse of the inquiry process."

Mr Rennie said that at least 18 other medical professionals knew by October 1998 about a complaint relating to smear misreading by Dr Bottrill.

Ms Coney said medical practitioners appeared to shrink away from reporting colleagues because of "extreme collegiality" and misplaced loyalty, enforced through punishment of those who stepped out of line.

She said it had been a bad year for women's health, citing cases of sexual abuse by Christchurch doctor Morgan Fahey, the coming disciplinary hearing involving Northland gynaecologist Dr Graham Parry and the cervical cancer inquiry.

Ms Coney said it was of major concern that the common thread to these scandals was that they had been made public only through the efforts of lay people and the media, "not the ethics of the medical profession."

Panel chairwoman Ailsa Duffy, QC, questioned Ms Coney about the possibility that doctors raising concerns about colleagues could face legal action, such as defamation.

"Wouldn't that be better than having women die?" said Ms Coney.

"These people are powerful. I don't accept they become powerless just because it comes to reporting one of their colleagues.

"There are lots of avenues to pursue if they have the will and use their imagination."

Herald Online feature: Gisborne Cancer Inquiry

Official website of the Inquiry