Mesh victims ‘still fighting for justice' five years on from review
Sling the Mesh, a campaign group representing women harmed by mesh, accused governments of 'dragging their feet' on implementing all the recommendations set out in the report.
The review examined how the health service responded to concerns over pelvic mesh – which has been linked to crippling, life-changing complications including chronic pain, infections and loss of sex life; the anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate – which has been linked to physical malformations, autism and developmental delay in many children when it is taken by their mothers during pregnancy, and hormone pregnancy tests such as Primodos – which are thought to be associated with birth defects and miscarriages.
It concluded that patients came to 'avoidable harm' because the healthcare system failed to respond in a speedy and appropriate way when serious concerns were raised about some medical treatments.
The First Do No Harm review, published in 2020, found patients were 'dismissed' and 'overlooked', while the healthcare system had a 'glacial' and 'defensive' response to concerns over treatments.
It set out a series of recommendations, but campaigners have said that to date, some three of the nine recommendations set out in the review have been implemented.
Sling the Mesh said that the Government had not done a retrospective audit to gauge the scale of the harm caused by mesh implants or provided compensation for women injured as a result.
It also said that ministers had not delivered on a recommendation to reform the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).f
Kath Sansom, founder of the Sling The Mesh campaign, said: 'It's not good enough. Five years ago, Baroness Cumberlege laid bare the systemic failures that caused irreparable harm to women across the UK.
'Yet here we are in 2025, and the Government has dragged its feet on the most critical reforms.
'Women are without compensation and still being failed by a healthcare system that was supposed to protect them.'
MP Sharon Hodgson, chairwoman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for First Do No Harm, said: 'To have this little progress five years on from the publication of the report is hugely disappointing.
'Five years ago today, things felt hopeful. The review marked what we thought would be the beginning of real systematic change, the start of building a system that listens to women when they report harm – an end to defensiveness and denial.
'Yet progress can only be seen in three out of the nine changes she proposed, with one still ongoing – leaving five completely untouched.
'Crucially, thousands of women and families who were irreversibly harmed through no fault of their own are yet to see compensation.
'Money will not make up for all they have endured. However, it would at the least remove the financial burden placed on their lives – helping them to navigate the physical, mental and financial impact these scandals have placed upon them and their families.
'Five years on, the time for excuses is over. We need action now and I call on my Government to implement all the recommendations, including updating the House on a timeline for compensation as soon as possible.'
Rebekah Smith, Epilepsy Action's chief executive, said: 'It is a scandal that as far back as 35 years, thousands of women with epilepsy weren't being told about the risks involved with taking valproate in pregnancy when evidence was mounting. These women have had to live with the reality of that for decades and the huge emotional and financial impact it has on their lives.
'It is also a scandal that two reports in the last five years have recommended that families be compensated for the ordeal and yet those affected are still waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.'
Nicola Swanborough, head of external affairs at the Epilepsy Society, said: 'Five years after the publication of the Cumberlege Review, we welcome the fact that regulations have been tightened around the prescribing of valproate for women with epilepsy, reducing the risk of harm for the next generation.
'But for the families whose lives have been devastated by the side effects of valproate, there has still been no promise of the compensation that they have long campaigned for, and which was recommended by the Patient Safety Commissioner.'
One of the key recommendations of the report was the appointment of a Patient Safety Commissioner, who would be an 'independent public leader with a statutory responsibility'.
A commissioner was appointed, but following the Government's 10-year plan for health last week, it has been confirmed that this role will be transferred into the MHRA.
Ms Sansom said: 'Moving the Patient Safety Commissioner role to the MHRA silences the patient voice instead of strengthening it.
'It strips away independence, undermines trust, and betrays the very women this role was created to protect.'
Earlier this month, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that patients do not need 'ventriloquists' from arm's length bodies to speak for them, and more weight should be given to the likes of MPs and councillors.
Streeting suggested the patient safety landscape is 'cluttered', with NHS leaders receiving 'competing and contradictory instructions' from different organisations.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'The harm caused by pelvic mesh continues to be felt today. Our sympathies are with those affected and we are fully focused on how best to support patients and prevent future harm.
'This is a complex area of work and the Government is carefully considering the Patient Safety Commissioner's recommendations in full.
'Health Minister Baroness Gillian Merron met patients affected and has committed to providing a further update.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
US organ donation system faces scrutiny and changes after reports of disturbing near-misses
The U.S. is developing new safeguards for the organ transplant system after a government investigation found a Kentucky group continued preparations for organ donation by some patients who showed signs of life, officials told Congress Tuesday. While the organ removals were canceled, near misses that some lawmakers called horrifying should never happen. A House subcommittee asked how to repair trust in the transplant network for potential organ donors and families -- some of whom have opted out of donor registries after these cases were publicized. 'We have to get this right,' said Rep. Brett Guthrie, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee and whose mother died waiting for a liver transplant. 'Hopefully people will walk away today knowing we need to address issues but still confident that they can give life,' Guthrie said, adding that he will remain a registered organ donor. The hearing came after a federal investigation began last fall into allegations that a Kentucky donation group pressured a hospital in 2021 to proceed with plans to withdraw life support and retrieve organs from a man despite signs that he might be waking up from his drug overdose. That surgery never happened after a doctor noticed him moving and moaning while being transported to the operating room — and the man survived. Lawmakers stressed most organ donations proceed appropriately and save tens of thousands of lives a year. But the federal probe – concluded in March but only made public ahead of Tuesday's hearing -- cited a 'concerning pattern of risk' in dozens of other cases involving the Kentucky group's initial planning to recover someone's organs. The report said some should have been stopped or reassessed earlier, and mostly involved small or rural hospitals with less experience in caring for potential organ donors. The Kentucky organ procurement organization, or OPO, has made changes and the national transplant network is working on additional steps. But notably absent Tuesday was any testimony from hospitals – whose doctors must independently determine a patient is dead before donation groups are allowed to retrieve organs. Here's a look at how the nation's transplant system works. There's a dire need for organ donation More than 100,000 people are on the U.S. transplant list and about 13 a day die waiting, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Only about 1% of deaths occur in a way that allows someone to even be considered for organ donation. Most people declared dead in a hospital will quickly be transferred to a funeral home or morgue instead. How the U.S. organ transplant system is set up Several groups are involved in every transplant: the hospital caring for someone dead or dying; the 55 OPOs that coordinate recovery of organs and help match them to patients on the waiting list; and transplant centers that decide if an organ is the right fit for their patients. Adding to the complexity, two government agencies — HRSA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — share regulatory oversight of different parts of the donation and transplant process. How deceased donation works Most organ donors are brain-dead – when testing determines someone has no brain function after a catastrophic injury. The body is left on a ventilator to support the organs until they can be retrieved. But increasingly organs are donated after circulatory death, called DCD – when people die because their heart stops. It usually happens when doctors determine someone has a nonsurvivable injury and the family withdraws life support. Donation groups don't provide hands-on patient care Hospitals are required to alert their area OPO to every potential donor who is declared brain-dead or once the decision to withdraw life support is made. The OPOs by law can't participate in that decision and "we are not even in the room at that time,' said Barry Massa of Kentucky's Network for Hope. During the following days of preparation, hospital employees continue caring for the patient – while the donation team talks with the family about the process, gathers hospital records showing the patient is eligible, requests tests of organ quality, and make arrangements with transplant centers to use them. Once the hospital withdraws life support and the heart stops beating there's a mandatory wait – five minutes – to be sure it won't restart. When the doctor declares death, the organ retrieval process can begin. Organs are only considered usable if death occurs relatively quickly, usually up to about two hours. Sometimes that takes much longer and thus the organs can't be used – and HRSA's Dr. Raymond Lynch told Congress that doesn't necessarily mean anything was done wrong. Still, he said HRSA is investigating reports of possible mistakes elsewhere. 'This is a technically demanding form of care' that requires 'good collaboration between the OPO and the hospital,' he said. What happens next At issue is how doctors are sure when it's time to withdraw life support from a dying patient — and the delicate balance of how OPOs interact with hospital staff in preparing for donation once death occurs. In May, HRSA quietly ordered the U.S. transplant network to oversee improvements at the Kentucky OPO and to develop new national policies making clear that anyone – family, hospital staff or organ donation staff – can call for a pause in donation preparations any time there are concerns about the patient's eligibility. Lynch said the government now wants more proactive collaboration from OPOs to give hospital staff 'a clear understanding' of when to at least temporarily halt and reevaluate a potential donor if their health status changes. Kentucky's Massa said his group only received HRSA's reports this week – but that after learning about last fall's allegations, it made some changes. Massa said every hospital doctor and nurse now gets a checklist on caring for potential donors and how to pause when concerns are raised — and anyone can anonymously report complaints. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Rhyl Journal
13 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
BMA confirms resident doctor strikes will go ahead
Confirmation of the industrial action followed crunch talks between the union and the Health Secretary last week. After the meeting, Wes Streeting reiterated that 'we cannot move on pay after a 28.9% pay rise' but added that the Government was looking at ways to improve resident doctors' working lives. The BMA resident doctors committee said while members were happy to discuss non-pay issues, the row 'is at its core a pay dispute'. Strikes will take place for five consecutive days from 7am on Friday July 25. Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, co-chairs of the BMA's resident doctors committee, said: 'We have always said that no doctor wants to strike and all it would take to avoid it is a credible path to pay restoration offered by the Government. 'We came to talks in good faith, keen to explore real solutions to the problems facing resident doctors today. 'Unfortunately, we did not receive an offer that would meet the scale of those challenges. 'While we were happy to discuss non-pay issues that affect doctors' finances we have always been upfront that this is at its core a pay dispute. 'The simplest and most direct means of restoring the more than a fifth of our pay that has eroded since 2008 is to raise our pay. 'While we were keen to discuss other items, it was made very clear by the Government that this obvious course of action was going to remain off the table.' The statement added that 'student debt and the cost of training remain crushing burdens on the finances of resident doctors' and while the BMA hoped there would be 'new ideas' to tackle this, what was proposed 'would not have been significant enough to change the day-to-day financial situation for our members'. 'However our door remains open, and we are glad to have met with the Secretary of State in a constructive spirit. We want to keep talking but we don't accept we can't talk about pay,' they said. Reacting to the BMA's announcement, Mr Streeting said there was an opportunity for the union 'to work with us on a range of options that would have made a real difference to resident doctors' working conditions and created extra roles to deal with the bottlenecks that hold back their career progression'. 'Instead, they have recklessly and needlessly opted for strike action. 'The BMA would have lost nothing by taking up the offer to postpone strike action to negotiate a package that would improve the working lives of resident doctors. 'By refusing to do so, they will cause unnecessary disruption to patients, put additional pressure on their NHS colleagues and not take the opportunity to improve their own working conditions. 'All of my attention will be now on averting harm to patients and supporting NHS staff at work. 'After a 28.9% pay hike in the last three years and the highest pay rise in the public sector two years in a row, strike action is completely unjustified, completely unprecedented in the history of British trade unionism and shows a complete disdain for patients and the wider recovery of the NHS.' It came after research suggested public support for the strike is waning. A YouGov poll showed about half (52%) of people in the UK 'somewhat oppose' (20%) or 'strongly oppose' (32%) resident doctors going on strike over pay. A third (34%) of the 4,954 adults surveyed either 'somewhat support' (23%) or 'strongly support' (11%) doctor strikes. YouGov said the proportion supporting the strike over pay has dropped five points since it last asked the question in May, when 48% opposed the strikes and 39% supported them. A row between the BMA and health leaders also deepened on Tuesday. NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, hit back at the union's claims that health leaders were putting patients at risk, saying it was the 'costly' BMA strike that was risking patient care. Earlier, the BMA said NHS England plans for managing the strike could put patients at risk because it has ordered hospitals to continue with as much pre-planned care as possible. In a letter to trust leaders, it urged the health system to focus on maintaining emergency care, the flow of patients and elective care 'to the fullest extent possible', as well as 'priority treatments' such as cancer care. 'It will be important for systems and trusts to try and maintain normal levels of booked activity,' it said, adding: 'Reducing volumes of bookings and rescheduling of appointments and other activity should only happen in exceptional circumstances to safeguard patient safety.' On Tuesday morning, BMA deputy chairwoman Dr Emma Runswick told BBC Radio 4's Today programme this plan risked patient safety. She said: 'We think that a notional guidance from NHS England which is saying that basically all scheduled work should continue to go ahead has potential to be seriously risky for patients. 'Senior doctors are needed to be freed up in order to provide urgency and critical care. 'We think the vast majority of planned and unscheduled care should be shifted.' Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Mr Streeting said that before he came into office, 'strikes were crippling the NHS'. He added: 'Costs ran to £1.7 billion in just one year, and patients saw 1.5 million appointments rescheduled.'
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Telegraph
Junior doctors' strike to go ahead after talks fail
A five-day strike by junior doctors will go ahead from Friday after talks failed. The British Medical Association (BMA) is pushing for pay increases of 29 per cent, having already secured such a boost under the Labour Government. The walkouts by up to 30,000 medics will be the first national strike by a healthcare union under a Labour administration since the winter of discontent in 1979. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, opened talks with the BMA last week, since when health and union officials have been locked in discussions. Mr Streeting has said the Government will not negotiate on pay, but was prepared to make changes to improve working conditions. But on Tuesday afternoon, the BMA said the strikes would go ahead.
