Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 08 September 2020
Scottish Mesh Survivors has been clear; it took a firm view about the services of Dr Veronikis and the need for him to take action.
Our amendment makes it clear that, for the women who have had mesh implants and require removal surgery, such surgery must be
“undertaken by surgeons who enjoy the full confidence of the women affected”.
That is the issue—it is about confidence. That surgery must be fully funded by the NHS. It is no less than the women deserve. We hope that the Scottish Government recognises that and will support our amendment.
It is also worth remembering the people with conditions other than pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence who have suffered from mesh implants. At the end of 2018, the Sunday Post reported the stories of patients—male and female—who had received mesh implants during hernia operations. One patient described the pain following the treatment as “agonising”, and like
“being strangled from the inside”,
so it is clear that that particular material has had wide-ranging effects and has caused untold damage to many lives.
The Cumberlege report is clear about use of mesh to treat POP and SUI. Although it stops short of calling for an overall ban on its use, it says that
“women must be able to make a fully-informed decision based on clear and unbiased information—the benefits, the risks, the alternatives, and doing nothing”
and that mesh treatment should be
“considered as a last-line option after conservative non-surgical options, and after consideration of non-mesh surgery”.
The report also covers two other significant areas of public health failings, namely the use of Primodos and other hormone pregnancy tests, and the use of sodium valproate for treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorder, with emphasis on its effects during pregnancy. Although the report provides significant detail, in both cases it is the personal experiences of those who have suffered from the treatments that are most sobering. Their stories are heartbreaking, and are just some of the many accounts that were noted in the report.
Two of the key themes throughout many of the stories are the lack of information being given to patients about potential side effects of the treatments, and the manner in which patients were ignored by clinicians when they raised their concerns. Those were not one-off failings, or failings that could be attributed to a particular hospital or general practice. Rather, they were indicative of a clear system-wide failure.
The report argues that
“The influence of patients within the NHS and the overall delivery of healthcare needs to be increased to balance the authority both directly and indirectly of those we call stakeholders in the healthcare system”.
The report also notes that the consequence of failing to listen to patients often leads to patients feeling
“vulnerable and ... unable to challenge and question. The patient is ignored and feels belittled.”
The report terms this theme “The patient voice dismissed”. That is a damning indictment. It is clearly vital that that be improved, so I hope that the appointment of a patient safety commissioner can go some way towards achieving that outcome.
I have merely scratched the surface of the detailed report. I proffer the thanks of Conservative members to Baroness Cumberlege and her team for their tireless work in putting the report together.
It is clear that, here in Scotland, some immediate steps have already been taken, and we welcome and support those steps. However, in the case of the many women who continue to seek mesh removal treatment, their fight continues. In Scotland, we can make a difference, if we have the resolve to do so.
I move amendment S5M-22635.1, to insert at end,
“, and believes that this must include the early prospect of full transvaginal mesh removal surgery being undertaken by surgeons who enjoy the full confidence of the women affected, fully funded by the NHS.”
14:59Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.