Kerry General Hospital responded in competent manner to difficult child birth

Medical negligence - plaintiff claims that she became severely depressed and suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result of a dramatic, frightening experience at Kerry General Hospital before and during the birth of her second baby, Jacob, on the 11th June, 2011 - crisis arose when the midwife carried out an artificial rupture of membranes (“ARM”) and the umbilical cord prolapsed so that it was in danger of being constricted or occluded by the baby’s head - plaintiff was rushed to the operating theatre for caesarean section and in the course of the journey the midwife had to hold the baby’s head away from the cord up to the point when the operation was about to begin - baby was born in good condition, although he was ill for a time after birth, and subsequently developed a difficult congenital condition unrelated to the circumstances of his birth - legal tests summarised and approved in Dunne v. National Maternity Hospital [1989] I.R. 91. - of particular materiality to this case are points (d) and (e) of the Dunne test, which provide that an honest difference of opinion between doctors as to which is the better of two ways of treating a patient does not provide any ground for deciding that the person who followed one course rather than the other was negligent and that it is not for a judge to decide which of two alternative courses of treatment is in the judge’s opinion preferable - Court’s function is merely to decide whether the course of treatment followed, on the evidence, complied with the careful conduct of a medical practitioner of like specialisation and skill to that professed by the defendant - The fact that the baby was born in good condition and was not hypoxic is not evidence that the ARM was negligent - cord prolapse is not proof that the head was mobile when the ARM was done - that is one reason why the prolapse might have occurred but against that is the evidence of Midwife Kelliher, supported by the defendants’ experts - it was reasonable for Midwife Kelliher to seek reassurance - the appropriate step was ARM - she was the person entitled and authorised and qualified to make the decision - she did an examination and satisfied herself that the baby’s head was not mobile - the plaintiff consented to the procedure - when the midwife did the ARM she immediately appreciated that the cord had prolapsed and responded appropriately by raising the alarm, while protecting the baby from injury resulting from compression of the cord - the emergency procedure prescribed for such a crisis went into operation and the plaintiff was brought to the theatre where her baby was delivered in good condition - midwife was not negligent - treatment provided by the midwife is not deserving of criticism or condemnation and that the prolapse of the cord was a rare but known complication of the procedure the midwife responded in a competent manner as did the hospital - the management of the plaintiff accorded with a practice supported by a responsible body of expert opinion.