Pathologists 'closed ranks on bungle'

By FRANCESCA MOLD

Two of New Zealand's leading pathologists are being accused of closing ranks and failing to support an early inquiry into Gisborne's cervical cancer testing.

On the first day of a reconvened ministerial inquiry, the lawyer for affected women, Stuart Grieve, QC, said pathologists Drs Clint Teague and Andy Tie had failed to act when they learned that there could be more than one woman whose cervical smear slides had been misread by pathologist Dr Michael Bottrill.

He believed that the two men knew about the "Gisborne situation" before the Health Funding Authority became aware of concerns in March 1999.

Mr Grieve said the inquiry panel had to consider whether the pathologists had contributed to the under-reporting by failing to act in a timely way.

On April 1, 1999, the HFA received a letter from Mr Grieve, who represented a woman in a High Court civil case against Dr Bottrill, outlining his concerns that other women might be at risk.

A couple of weeks later, the authority learned of another case involving a woman whose smears had been misread.

The HFA then consulted Dr Teague and Dr Tie, of the Royal Australasian College of Pathologists, to determine whether it should conduct an extensive re-reading of smear slides screened by Dr Bottrill.

They advised against it, saying it was possible for any pathologist to miss abnormal cells.

They also said there was insufficient evidence of under-reporting of smears in Gisborne.

Mr Grieve questioned whether the pathologists' advice was a "kneejerk closing of the ranks by the college."

He asked HFA witness Tracey Mellor, who has led the organisation's investigation team, whether the pathologists had thought the re-screening should go ahead simply for "public relations" reasons.

She replied that they had agreed there should be confidence in laboratories and the screening process.

Ms Mellor said the HFA believed it was vital to go ahead with the re-readings because it wanted to protect the health of Gisborne women. "They [the pathologists] acknowledged we would and should do the re-read."

Counsel for the college, Gaylene Phipps, said that at the April meeting with the HFA it was only known that Dr Bottrill had been the subject of a disciplinary procedure which had found him guilty of offending at the lower end of the scale and that one woman had had her slides misread.

Ms Phipps said there were "concerns without specifics" and the college had simply expressed its belief that a re-reading exercise was not supported by the evidence but acknowledged that the situation would evolve as further evidence came to hand.

More Herald stories from the Inquiry

Official website of the Inquiry