Page 3326 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Then we heard about the elderly lady who was parked in a supplies room—because, the health minister, Reba Meagher, said, it was close to the nurses station. Yesterday, at an inquiry into Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, a former surgeon testified that “cockroaches ran over patients during operations” and that operating tables sometimes broke in two during operations, due to age and fatigue. That doctor resigned after getting no response to his written complaint about these conditions. He said yesterday that the “endless procession of events” highlighted “bureaucratic negligence” and “medical indifference”.
Here in the ACT, without a shadow of a doubt, we are facing similar problems. Here in the ACT, any attempt by the opposition or by nursing staff, doctors or patients and their families to raise issues about the inadequacy of treatment, the lack of basic supplies and equipment and the extraordinary waiting times in emergency have met with the usual brick wall and confected indignation of this Stanhope government and its current health minister.
This motion was prompted by the death of Allan Osterberg, aged 30, who died of a suspected heart attack after waiting for four hours to be treated at the Canberra Hospital. By the Canberra Hospital’s usual standards, four hours is not a particularly long time to wait. The opposition knows of one case in which a woman had to wait 41 hours for treatment. Around eight hours seems to be the norm—and has been since about 2003; before that, the norm was about two hours, and had been for decades.
What made Mr Osterberg’s case worse is that this young man, who came to the hospital seeking urgent care and treatment for a life-threatening condition, did not receive that care in a timely way. Indeed, so bad was the failure in the hospital’s duty of care towards Mr Osterberg that he had a coronary, unnoticed—I repeat that: unnoticed. He was there for four hours, and he died, unfortunately, a few hours later. We do not know whether he would have survived—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the matters surrounding the death of the individual Mr Stefaniak refers to are subject to a coroner’s inquiry. I do not know to what extent Mr Stefaniak is able to venture an opinion on the matter ahead of the coroner’s inquiry, but I seek your guidance as to whether there are any conventions that Mr Stefaniak needs to have regard to, given that these matters are subject to a coroner’s inquiry which is ongoing at this time.
MR STEFANIAK: I will be careful. I am coming to it. I will be mindful of that, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, please be mindful. It is a matter before the coroner, Mr Stefaniak. You, as much as anybody, would be aware of the Attorney-General’s concern that you do not stray onto that territory too far.
MR STEFANIAK: Thanks, Mr Speaker. To reassure the Attorney-General, let me say that we do not know whether he would have survived, but he would have had a much greater chance if he had received care in a timely way. The coroner will be inquiring into this case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .