THE IRISH OBSERVER: Medical Rape, Irish Medical Council

Thursday, November 5, 2020

Medical Rape, Irish Medical Council

The Medical Council

Public Information

The Medical Council is the regulatory body for doctors. It has a statutory role in protecting the public by promoting the highest professional standards amongst doctors practising in the Republic of Ireland.

In 2002, The Irish Medical Council heard 55 allegations against Dr Moira Woods, common law wife of, IRA Chief of Staff, Cathal Goulding. The Medical Council censured Dr Moira Woods for Professional Misconduct. The complaints arose from several investigations of child sexual abuse at a time when Dr Woods ran Ireland's first sexual assault unit in Dublin's Rotunda Hospital.

The Council's ruling came after an inquiry that began five years ago and ran to 43 days of hearing Forty-nine witnesses were heard, and the investigation cost £750,000.

Dr Woods had used anatomically correct dolls, and provided leading questions to the children involved, while reminding the children that they had previously told her where they had been touched.

There are reports of a case where Dr Woods allegedly failed to check opinions of other medics; where she accused fathers of abuse with insufficient evidence; where she failed to seek expert advice on a key issue before making far-reaching allegations of abuse. On her decisions, children were kept apart from their parents.

The case was inevitably chilling, as much for its implication as its recorded facts. It deals with nightmares: the terror of sexual abuse, but also the ultimate horror of any parent, losing custody of a child over false allegations of abuse.

There were allegations of over-hasty conclusions, unfair interviews and incomplete reports. In all, Dr Woods was effectively accused of 55 counts of misconduct. The tally is not as broad as it might seem, however, for the inquiry dealt with 11 children from a number of families. In each case Dr Woods was examined on five different areas of possible misconduct. These included failures to apply adequate clinical judgement, making accusations based on insufficient evidence, a failure of competence, not acting in the best interests of the children and acting in a manner derogatory to the medical profession.

The final tally of proven counts is not summarised in the Fitness to Practise Committee's findings, but examination shows the allegations against Dr Woods were found proven in 13 of the 55 allegations. In the case of one of the 11 children, the Committee ruled against Dr Woods in all five areas of possible misconduct. It was also found that she had accused a relative of sexual abuse in cases involving five of the 11 children, "when you knew or ought to have known that there was insufficient foundation to or basis for such advice".

Case Study Dublin's Rotunda Hospital

The following information has been taken from the Transcript of a Court case that was heard in open Court and in which the alleged victim waved her anonymity. While the Medical Report and Evidence were denied to the Jury by the Presiding Judge, the damage was done, in open Court the Trial Judge said that he was satisfied that the alleged finding of anal dilation related to the abuse alleged. His assertions were relayed to the Jury as they had lunch in a local Hotel.

Defense Council: Did you establish the allegations being made in this case before you began a medical examination of the alleged victim who was 17 years old at the time of the examination?

Dublin's Rotunda Hospital: Medical Expert for Prosecution: No

Defense Council: So, you began an invasive and detailed examination of the alleged victim without first establishing the allegations being made?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: Yes

Defense Council: So, let us start with your findings. What did you find in your examination of the virginal area?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: I found that the virginal area was 100% perfect, the alleged victim was Virgo Intacta, an untouched virgin.

Defense Council: Was there any scaring, tissue damage, anything to indicate sexual abuse?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: No, absolutely nothing

Defense Council: Let me read to you, one of the allegations being made in this case, he was penetrating my virgina with such force that my head was banging off the headboard and the headboard bouncing off the wall, is that consistent with what you found?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: Absolutely not, it is in no way consistent with my findings, her hymen was fully intact, and that in itself is unusual as about 60% of girls under 12 years old have their hymens broken by normal activity such as bike riding.

Defense Council: You then examined the anal area, is that correct?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: Yes

Defense Council: And what were your findings?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: I carried out an examination and found that there was anal dilation

Defense Council: Could you explain to the Court, what process you used to establish anal dilation?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: Yes, I inserted a digit into the alleged victim’s anus, and then concluded that there was anal dilation.

Defense Council: So, not having established the allegations in this case, you inserted a digit into the rectum of this 17-year-old alleged victim and concluded that a digit had been inserted, is that what you are telling this Court?

Medical Expert for Prosecution: Yes

Defense Council: It so happens, that while you did not establish the allegations being made in this case before your invasive examination of the alleged victim, the alleged victim, did, after your examination make a statement to Gardai alleging both virginal and anal digital penetration.

Medical Expert for Prosecution: I did not know that

Defense Council: Furthermore, following your invasive examination, the alleged victim made a statement to An Garda Siochana, however, following delivery of your Medical Report to An Garda Siochana, the Gardai asked the alleged victim to return to the Garda Station and change her statement so that it would be more in keeping with your findings, for example, she emphasised anal digital penetration.

Medical Expert for Prosecution: I did not know that

Defence Council: You are aware that the allegations in this case relate to several years before your invasive examination of the alleged victim, would it be possible that the anal dilation that you claim to have found related to your own digital penetration of the alleged victim than something that was alleged after the examination to have occurred years earlier?

NOTE: The Medical Expert in this case, by her own admission, stated that she had not established the allegations being made. The alleged victim may have simply been saying that her breast had been touched, yet, the Medical Expert set about a process that can only be described as Medical Rape. The Medical expert could offer not explanation to The Court why she engaged in such an invasive examination of the alleged victim in this case. An examination which was followed by allegations of anal and digital penetration.

The Medical Expert in this case, while having no explanation as to why she conducted such an invasive examination of a 17-year-old female, would later publicly reveal that she is a practising Homosexual and a campaigner for sexual freedom.

Dublin's Rotunda Hospital Sexual Assault Treatment Unit

The figures for three of the years of SATU's existence, from 1985 to 1987, show not only the rapid increase in referred cases, but also the remarkable validation rate claimed by the Unit.

The Medical Council said, "It is still noteworthy ... that during this period SATU arrived at an apparent 100 per cent validation rate. It will be noted that this process involved not just validation but identification of the relationship of the assailant to the victim."

Subsequent years brought a massive increase in cases referred to SATU, and though the validation rate dropped, the Committee believed it remained "very high". In 1987, for example, 600 children were examined and 511 offenders were identified.

The Committee found: "It is the view of the majority of the committee that such figures, even if they did not purport to be entirely scientific or conclusive, should have placed Dr Woods and the other persons involved in SATU on notice of the risks of excessive certainty and an excessive rate of validation."

There is detail in the Committee's findings that suggests Dr Woods made rash and potentially damaging judgements. Her methods are detailed and held as suspect. In effect, the Committee indicates, she did not take proper heed of the power of her position, a role where her word on cases was considered as final by others within the health care system.

"It is important...to recognise that not only might there be the potential for criminal proceedings," the Committee concluded, "but also there existed a very substantial risk that application for a fit person order might be made by the District Court which might have the consequences of the removal of children from the custody and care of their parents for an indefinite or unspecified period."

Individual cases outlined in the Committee findings make disturbing reading. One such case involving Miss A was first brought to SATU after a worker in a residential day care centre began to notice abnormal behavior exhibited by a mentally handicapped five-year-old girl. The care worker "stated that there was evidence of sexualised behavior," the Committee heard. "This included putting lollipop sticks ... and other objects including knives up her vagina. [The worker] also stated that there was evidence of her 'masturbating at night'."

Such behavior was, of course, hugely inappropriate for a five-year-old, and the care worker's fears were passed on to the relevant health board. The worker also contacted Dr Woods, "without the involvement of the parents", and an interview was conducted in late 1986. "It appears that anatomically correct dolls were used and a physical examination was carried out," the Committee says. "Dr Woods's report was issued thereafter. Although it does not positively identify [the girl's father] as the perpetrator, it points strongly towards him."

In a subsequent report, Dr Woods again repeated the suggestion. "It was apparent from an examination of Miss A that she had been sexually abused," the doctor wrote. "It was difficult to think of any other person who could have been in contact with her other than her father."

After the first report, a Health Board official contacted Dr Woods and told her Miss A had "several autistic features". The Committee reported: "He asked whether there could be any doubt under those circumstances about the origin of her behavior in inserting objects into her vagina, that is, having discovered it, she might have developed a fixation."

Dr Woods said she believed her assessment stood. The case went to the District Court, where Dr Woods "stated that all the indicators pointed to the father as being the perpetrator as he was the only person who could have been in regular contact with the child". The child was kept in care until 1989, when she was returned to her parents.

In its findings, a majority of the Committee found Moira Woods had acted without considering the possibility that the girl's actions were due to mental handicap rather than abuse. The doctor had not taken into account the possibility of any perpetrator other than the father. There was certainly opportunity for a range of abusers, as the girl had spent a period of time in residential care. "In the view of the majority of the Committee the failure of Dr Woods to obtain expert advice on autism was a substantial falling below the standards that are to be expected of a medical practitioner," the Committee found. In short, the Committee said, Dr Woods' conclusions and accusations were "inappropriate and too bold". In reports, she had failed to mention the possible connection between autism and the girl's behaviour.

In a separate case, the Committee heard evidence about Miss B, whose parents were involved in a legal separation at the time of the abuse investigation. The girl's father had assaulted her mother when she pregnant with a second child. The mother brought an assault case against her husband, who was placed on probation. After the assault but before the court hearing, Miss B's mother brought her daughter, then aged three, to a hospital to be examined for signs of sexual abuse. Nothing was found.

The couple separated, amid conflicting stories of domestic violence. After one weekend when the husband had access to Miss B, the girl's mother again brought her to hospital, saying she suspected abuse. The mother said the girl had suffered a vaginal discharge.

She was examined by a specialist, several weeks after the date of the alleged abuse, and again nothing was found. Such discharge, the doctor noted, was not rare in young girls. Dissatisfied, the mother took the recommendation of her GP and contacted Dr Woods.

The Committee noted: "The entire incident took place in the context of matrimonial proceedings where, clearly, it would be prudent for a medical practitioner to proceed carefully." Dr Woods, the Committee found, had not been careful enough. She interviewed the girl at her home and found "that Miss B had been sexually assaulted and that it was believed to have been done by her father," the Committee said.

There was a clear conflict between the diagnoses of Dr Woods and other medics who had been involved in the case, one of whom had concluded: "On the balance of probabilities, it is not possible to confirm that Miss B has been sexually abused."

Dr Woods, the Committee said, made no attempt to contact the other medics. She gave evidence in court it was her opinion Miss B had been sexually abused by her father.

Distressing detail punctuates the Committee's findings. The use of anatomically correct dolls is again mentioned in the case of Miss A, where one medical witness questioned Dr Woods' interpretations of the child's response. Dr Woods had written in a report: "Daddy lies on his back. Miss A lies on top. Daddy's penis is in contact with the vulva/vaginal area of Miss A." The Committee found that the medical witness disagreed with this interpretation of the dolls. Instead, the girl was "simply engaged in a game with Dr Woods that has no meaning or reality."

SURROUNDING the case, too, is the wider issue of Moira Woods's role within Irish liberal history. In the 1970s and 1980s, Moira Woods was a familiar and controversial figure. She stood at the forefront of change, allying herself to campaigns against the war in Vietnam, against Bloody Sunday, against the destruction of Dublin by developers. Most pertinently, she stood for a new kind of sexual freedom.