Meeting of the Parliament 24 October 2023
When we have discussed transvaginal mesh in previous debates, I have started by paying tribute to fellow MSPs who have campaigned on the issue. However, I do not think that I can do that this afternoon, because it has been nine years since the petition first came before the Public Petitions Committee. That means nine years of debates in the Parliament, nine years of people expressing concern and bewilderment about the pain that women have had to endure, and nine years of failure to act. I do not think that I can pay tribute to that. In fact, all that I can do is apologise to those brave women who have campaigned so hard, because, frankly, as I stand here today, I wonder just how much progress we have really made.
Today, we have had an acknowledgement of what women have had to endure. We have outlined initiatives that might take place and funds that might be available if the women qualified and they applied in time, and we have heard that training and a register might be in place. However, the reality is that, as the most recent report said, not one of the 2017 report’s 46 recommendations has been implemented.
Notwithstanding the facts and whether those reports have been adhered to, for too many women, the reality is that their simple questions are not being answered. Those women rightly have simple questions about what is happening to them. When is it going to get better for them? When will they receive treatment? How can they get information? Speaker after speaker has said that we do not have answers for them, or if there are answers, they are incredibly difficult to get, and that is not good enough. We can talk about policy and reports, but the simple reality is that, for nine years, we have been discussing an issue of individual women’s pain and suffering over many years.
I came to the issue through one of my constituents, Samantha Hindle, who has endured 18 years of pain. I have written time and time again to the Government and the health board in an attempt to get her some updates and information about what is happening. Let me outline what has happened after 18 years. Samantha Hindle first approached me in 2019, after she had exhausted every other avenue. I wrote and wrote and we finally got a referral in July 2022, which, I note, was a month after the closure of the fund for reimbursing people if they had already received private treatment.
We then followed up on when an appointment might be received. I wrote twice in December and, in February, we finally got a letter from the health board saying that my constituent had received her treatment. On 23 January, she had apparently had the mesh successfully removed, except that that was news to my constituent. No such appointment had taken place and no such procedure had been carried out. What is more, and what makes it worse, is that she then got an appointment for an ultrasound, which was apparently to locate the mesh and see whether it had been removed.
When she showed up for the appointment, she found out that the ultrasound was not to identify where the mesh was but to investigate her ovarian cysts. Those were cysts that she did not know were suspected and which—guess what?—were never found. Given that we are talking about a person who presented with mesh problems after her MSP had written time and again to the Government and the health board, yet the health board could not even get those basic facts right, what progress have we made?
After that saga, I wrote to the First Minister to say that, on a human level, putting aside policy and commitments, the situation was surely not right. I appealed for an acknowledgement that, on a basic human level, leaving people in the dark without answers was just not right. Unfortunately—this is no reflection on the minister—my letter was handed to the minister and the First Minister did not even reply.
What did we get? We got a list of those self-same initiatives—in other words, that a letter had been written so that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would make contact; that work would be undertaken; that training would be in place; that there was a fund, although it was now closed, so my constituent could not apply for it; and, above all else, that there was the prospect of “waiting well”. I have to say that the phrase “waiting well” rings a little hollow for my constituent Samantha Hindle, because the reality is that, after nine years, she still does not know when she will get an appointment, when her situation will get better or what treatment she can get. Until we get such answers for her and the hundreds of women like her, we will continue to fail women who have been implanted with mesh.
17:16