Meeting of the Parliament 24 October 2023
That observation is correct. This debate, like those that preceded it, will be watched far beyond the chamber by the many victims of mesh, who will share Jackson Carlaw’s and my dismay that the front bench of the Scottish Government is not represented.
Although nothing can take away from the trauma that far too many women endured, at least they did not have to bear the hefty financial costs of having the implants removed. The problem has been in accessing that surgery.
The legislation was not the panacea that many hoped it would be. The reimbursement scheme did not include the victims of other mesh implants—for instance, those who have suffered complications from devices associated with hernia mesh. We have heard some very graphic descriptions of those cases. That is why I was one of the first to raise hernia mesh in the chamber, along with a number of other MSPs. We have probably all met constituents who are missed out, still. One of my constituents has, in effect, been left crippled by her hernia mesh.
In January, we debated a petition to suspend the use of mesh altogether. I was mindful then of the concern that suspending the wider use of mesh could leave some people with no—or very limited—treatment options.
There are some life-or-death cases in which the use of mesh for a surgical implant is essential. What is utterly essential is that every patient is given access to the full facts before going ahead with any treatment of that nature. Many cases involving the use of transvaginal mesh had in common the abject failure of those who provided the treatment to make patients fully aware of the attendant risks of using those implants. Informed consent is—or should be—one of the key principles of our health service. It is right for every patient to be given full information about what their treatment involves—what is being put inside their body and what it has the potential to do to them. That is realistic medicine—treating people like grown-ups. That information must include the potential risks as well as the benefits, and patients must always, wherever possible, be offered a reasonable alternative treatment.
It is also important that health boards are provided with all that they need to ensure the availability of non-mesh surgery, and that any skills gaps in their workforce that impact on the treatment of complex cases are addressed.
I am glad that the transvaginal mesh case record review, which was conducted by Professor Alison Britton and about which we have heard today, was finally published in June. However, it is worrying that, in the introduction to the report, Professor Britton makes it clear that none of the 46 recommendations that she made in her previous report in 2018 has, so far, been properly implemented by the Scottish Government. I am grateful to the Government for using Government time for the debate, but I am sure that the minister will agree that such a glacial lack of progress is unacceptable, and I hope that she will address that in her closing remarks.
The harrowing experiences of many survivors of mesh implants have seriously damaged their trust in the NHS. It is therefore vital that we now get the issue right and that all the recommendations are implemented as a matter of urgency.