A DOCTOR whose career as a surgeon ended after contracting the HIV virus from a patient while performing his work duties has settled his High Court action against the hospital, the HSE and the State on undisclosed terms.
Among the doctor’s claims was that the absence of mandatory screening of hospital patients for HIV exposed him to a risk of harm. The defendants had not implemented patient testing on grounds it was “uneconomical” and only those patients suspected as being at significant risk of HIV were asked whether they had the virus, he alleged.
As a result of being diagnosed with HIV in 1997, the doctor, then a senior surgical registrar, had to immediately give up his duties. He said this occurred just as he was within a short period of securing an appointment as a consultant surgeon.
He and his wife were not ready to have children at an earlier stage of their marriage and after his infection the option was closed to them, he added. He and his wife were very distressed by his diagnosis, which radically altered their hopes for the future and he also lived in constant fear he might infect his wife.
His wife was now the main breadwinner, which was not anticipated by either of them as he had been extremely successful in his career prior to contracting HIV, he said.
He had also suffered all the consequences of HIV infection, including illness, tiredness, lethargy and depression and continued to undergo combination triple therapy that had substantially altered his lifestyle and caused nausea, upset and trauma.
After becoming unwell with a flu-like illness, he received the HIV diagnosis in May 1997. His life “stopped that day”, he had previously told the court.
He said he contracted HIV as a result of needle-stick injuries sustained while operating on patients. During the three months prior to his diagnosis, he operated on more than 100 patients but could not be specific about when he was infected. He said he had to use various sharp implements while performing his duties but latex gloves worn by him and other doctors were easily and regularly perforated by such instruments and by bone. He also had to use screws, saws and chisels and there was the potential to be contaminated with blood from wounds, it was claimed.
The action was initiated in 1999 and adjourned a number of times by other judges before coming for hearing yesterday before the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns. By court order, neither the doctor nor the hospital can be identified.
At the outset, the judge was told by Gerry Danaher SC, for the doctor, of discussions between the sides and was asked to allow time to facilitate those. He did so and was told later yesterday afternoon the case had settled.
Mr Danaher said it was agreed the case could be struck out with no order except one vacating previous costs orders in the case.
Eugene Gleeson SC, for the hospital, said he wanted to make clear there was no suggestion by the hospital that the doctor’s HIV infection was acquired otherwise than in an occupational setting.
In his proceedings, the doctor alleged the defendants had a duty to take all reasonable precautions for his safety while he was engaged in his work. They had a duty not to expose him to a risk of injury or damage of which they knew or ought to have known and to provide a safe system of working and safe place of work, he alleged. He claimed, under the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors, he could not refuse to carry out surgical procedures on persons presenting for treatment and had to perform his duties regardless of a patient’s status or condition.
In those circumstances, he alleged the defendants knew there was a risk to him of potential contamination. He alleged the defendants had failed to develop or adopt any adequate risk management and infection control policy.
The defendants had denied the claims. Contributory negligence on the part of the doctor for allegedly failing to have any or any adequate regard to the risk of infection from HIV while carrying out invasive surgical procedures was also pleaded.
