Shock as smear query revealed

By FRANCESCA MOLD and FIONA BARBER

A Northland woman dying of cervical cancer after the disease was allegedly missed by Whangarei gynaecologist Graham Parry may also have had up to seven smears misread.

The Health Funding Authority (HFA) is investigating Northland Pathology Laboratory's reading of seven cervical smears belonging to Colleen Poutsma, going back to 1991.

Ownership of the laboratory is understood to have changed hands since the smears were reported.

The Herald understands five of the seven smears were reported as normal, yet Mrs Poutsma was diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer.

The HFA is understood to be arranging an independent re-reading of the smears at an overseas laboratory.

Mrs Poutsma's husband Jack said he was unsure when the re-reading would be done.

Mrs Poutsma is expected to be flown from an Auckland hospice where she has been staying to her home in Paihia today.

"It came as a complete shock to us that there may be a question about smears as well as Dr Parry," said Mr Poutsma.

But he also said the family did not want the smear issue to detract from concern about Dr Parry's competence, which is the subject of a medical disciplinary hearing next month.

Dr Parry is charged with disgraceful misconduct relating to his assessment and treatment of Mrs Poutsma.

ACC officials say Dr Parry has been involved in 12 cases of medical misadventure dating to 1992. Six involved medical error (negligence) and six were medical mishaps.

He was suspended by the Medical Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal last week.

The possible involvement of cervical smear misreading in Mrs Poutsma's case was raised at the Gisborne cancer inquiry yesterday.

Alliance MP Phillida Bunkle, representing the Women's Health Information Resource Trust, said she had met Northland women who raised concerns about treatment they received from Dr Parry.



Ms Bunkle yesterday asked the inquiry panel to call on the HFA to disclose the names of six laboratories identified as being of concern.

The HFA presented the labs investigation to the Gisborne inquiry in July.



Panel chairwoman Ailsa Duffy, QC, said the inquiry wanted an audit done of cervical cancer cases, including those registered in Northland. This study would help the panel to determine whether cervical smear under-reporting was happening in regions other than Gisborne.

The study has been unable to go ahead because of strict privacy restrictions in the Health Act that prevent the release of information identifying women from the cervical screening register.

Ms Duffy said the audit could be one way of allaying the fears of Northland women.

She said there were also legal avenues available to people wanting to obtain details about the laboratories, such as using the Official Information Act.

But the Herald, which requested the report under this act, was turned down by the Ministry of Health on the grounds that it could prejudice the maintenance of the law because the inquiry had ruled the information should not be made public.

The Herald has referred the ministry's decision to the Ombudsman.



A lawyer told the Gisborne inquiry that the woman who sparked the ministerial inquiry into cervical smear mis-reading, and who was known as Jane, would have received between $1 million and $2 million in compensation had she lived in Australia.

Stuart Grieve, QC, said an Australian woman who had a single slide misread had received $750,000 for loss of earnings, pain and suffering.

But in Jane's case, she had incurred more than $100,000 in legal bills from pursuing a High Court case against former Gisborne pathologist Dr Michael Bottrill.













Mr Grieve claimed three pathologists who had the potential to raise concerns about the Gisborne situation had displayed a lack of "internal morality."

In particular, he criticised Wellington pathologist Dr Clinton Teague for "Nelsonian blindness - shutting his eyes to the obvious."

In his submissions to the inquiry, Mr Grieve heavily criticised the behaviour of Dr Bottrill, who he said had made his primary concern the sale and price of his practice.

"There is no hint in the evidence that he at any stage gave any consideration to his patients."

Lawyers for Drs Bottrill, Teague and other pathologists have yet to deliver their closing submissions.

More Herald stories from the Inquiry

Official website of the Inquiry