Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 08 September 2020
Yes—many questions regarding the service remain, and I have some sympathy with the suggestion that there should be a temporary suspension to ensure that there is trust and confidence in any service.
The review notes that some mesh survivors have so lost faith in the NHS provision for mesh removal that they have been prepared to pay for expensive private surgery. In some cases, they have travelled overseas at great cost, both personal and financial. No one should have to do that and, of course, that is not an option for everyone. People must not feel so let down by a healthcare system that they have no option but to pay for their care. The rebuilding of trust must be prioritised.
The review makes it clear that its findings were not the result of a handful of bad apples. It states:
“The issue here is not one of a single or a few rogue medical practitioners, or differences in regional practice. It is system-wide.”
This is a chronic problem whereby women are not listened to and fear of retribution can prevent clinicians from coming forward when mistakes are made.
I move amendment S5M-22635.2, to insert after “review”:
“notes the review’s assertion that there is a ‘widespread and wholly unacceptable labelling of so many symptoms as ‘normal’ and attributable to ‘women’s problems’’; acknowledges that the review’s findings highlight the repeated dismissal of women’s pain and discomfort; is concerned by the failure to obtain informed consent from many of the women affected by Primodos, sodium valproate and transvaginal mesh; agrees that, without the campaigning of these women and their families, many of the issues cited in the review would not have come to light;”.
15:14Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.