[ad_1]
The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the cases of three 80-year-old Irish symphysiotomy survivors who claimed the state had violated their human rights.
Women had endured the outdated procedure in Irish hospitals some 60 years ago.
They complained to the court that Ireland had not fully investigated the practice of symphysiotomy and that they had not been able to litigate their claims. On Thursday morning, the ECHR unanimously declared the cases inadmissible.
Symphysiotomy consisted of cutting the cartilage and ligaments of a pelvic joint or pelvic bone before or during labor to widen the woman’s hips so that a baby could be born. Although the practice stopped in most European countries in the 1950s and was replaced with caesarean sections, it continued in Ireland until the mid-1980s. An estimated 1,500 symphysiotomies were performed between the 1940s and 1980s. In Ireland. Symphysiotomy survivors have reported lifelong pain and physical disabilities, as well as emotional trauma.
Three different Irish women, known as LF, KO’S and WM, brought individual cases to the European Court of Human Rights. LF was born in 1939 and lives in Dublin, KO’S was born in 1934 and lives in Co Cork and WM was born in 1935 and lives in Kells.
All three women gave birth to children in Irish hospitals in the 1960s, and all said they had a symphysiotomy performed without their consent. The women said they suffered “physical and psychological trauma” as a result.
The woman had complained under article 3 of the human rights convention that prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment, article 8 that guarantees respect for private and family life and article 13 that guarantees an effective remedy.
The court considered their cases under Article 8, which also requires states to provide victims of medical malpractice access to compensation. In declaring the cases inadmissible, the ECHR said that Irish courts had been open to the three women.
The three women had brought cases through the Irish courts, but all were delayed pending the outcome of a case that Olivia Kearney, a Louth woman, took against the state.
In 2012, the High Court ruled that there had been no justification for the symphysiotomy performed on Ms. Kearney in 1969 at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. In her own subsequent case, LF alleged that there had been no justification to carry out the procedure on her.
The Superior Court said it had been a “reasonable but limited option” for LF, as a vaginal delivery was not possible in her case. In 2016, the appeal court upheld that decision and in 2017, LF was denied permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. After this, KO’S and WM dropped their claims.
In 2014, the state established an ex gratia payment plan for women affected by symphysiotomy. The plan was only open to women who agreed not to sue the state. None of the three women requested the scheme, and all said they believed “that there was no possibility of any recognition of a violation of their rights.”
All three said there has never been a comprehensive and independent investigation into the use of symphysiotomy in Ireland, and that they were prevented from taking a case to national courts.
The court said that Ireland had “not been inactive” on the matter, and had established an investigation and an ex gratia payment plan, thus fulfilling its obligation to provide redress.
KO’S also claimed that Ireland had breached its obligation to protect women from inhuman and degrading treatment by allowing symphysiotomies to take place in Ireland.
The court said that she had not “exhausted domestic remedies” because she had not filed such a complaint in Irish courts.
Online editors
[ad_2]