3pm
Westminster Hall debate
Adults with Learning Disabilities
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): I congratulate the Committee and the joint Chair on the excellent work that they have done on this important subject. I welcome the opportunity to talk about adults with learning disabilities and, by extension, the rights of their families. Too many people with learning disabilities are not being respected, and that is demonstrated by recent examples in the health sector.
It gives me no pleasure to have to highlight a case that was brought to me by the mother and sister of Martin Ryan, whose avoidable death was highlighted by the excellent Mencap report “Death by Indifference”, which was published in 2007. Throughout his life, Martin suffered from severe learning disabilities, Down’s syndrome, epilepsy and he had no power of speech. The health service ombudsman, Ann Abraham, carried out an investigation into Martin’s death. I understand that, when that report is published later this month, it will highlight that the death of Martin Ryan was avoidable.
I have met my constituents a number of times to discuss the treatment that Martin received after having a stroke and being admitted to Kingston hospital in 2005. I believe that Martin’s case demonstrates how adults with learning disabilities are often not granted the full rights that they deserve when receiving medical attention. I apologise to the Committee for going through the details, but it is important to do so.
Martin’s case is an extremely distressing one. He was admitted to Kingston hospital after suffering from a stroke. As a result of the stroke, Martin was unable to swallow, which often happens with stroke victims, and could not consume food or drink. Martin was put on a drip, but was unable to extract adequate nutrition from it. During the second week in hospital, Martin’s veins collapsed, and feeding by a drip was no longer possible.
After Martin had gone without adequate nutrition for 21 days, doctors decided to put a feeding tube directly into his stomach. Sadly, Martin was not strong enough to undergo the operation. Five days later, he died in hospital after 26 days without food or nutrition.
Martin’s case has received a great deal of national press coverage in recent months. The coverage highlighted his care and the possible findings of the ombudsman’s report. I have considered the ombudsman’s report in detail with Martin’s mother and sister. The report will outline a combination of different failures that led to Martin’s death. It is also likely to find that Martin was put at risk because specialist stroke services were not provided for him and that numerous communication failures within the team resulted in him receiving inadequate care. Moreover, Martin’s sister, Ann Ryan, has told me that the ombudsman’s report will find that there were a number of service failures in the treatment and care provided by Kingston hospital. Shockingly, the ombudsman will find that the failures occurred primarily because Martin had a learning disability.
The omissions and failures of Kingston hospital and of the individual staff members who cared for Martin constitute a failure to live up to the principles of dignity, equity and autonomy for all individuals that are discussed in the report. The circumstances in which Martin Ryan died are alarming. It is clear that, owing to a catalogue of errors, his life was put at risk and that he died as a result of inappropriate care.
The ombudsman’s report will find that Martin’s death was avoidable and that a number of service failures by staff at Kingston hospital led to his death. Yet despite that, I am concerned that there has been no effort that I am aware of on the part of the ombudsman to hold to account the individuals responsible for Martin’s death. Although the chief executive of the hospital gave assurances that the medical professionals involved would be disciplined for their actions, no evidence of that has been brought forward, nor has the Ryan family received any dialogue in relation to that. Such a failure in communications following a tragic death is wholly unacceptable.
Martin’s mother and sister believe that the consultant, the matron and the ward sister at the hospital were responsible for the service failures that led to Martin not receiving adequate nutrition and for his subsequent death. They believe that the individuals should be named, brought to account and disciplined. Such a call is all the more necessary due to the fact that the service failures occurred because Martin had a disability. The family are not seeking revenge, but they want to ensure that those individuals are held to account. They do not want them to make the same mistakes again.
Naming the individuals in the ombudsman’s report-I ask the Minister to speak to the ombudsman about this-will send a strong message to professionals that they will be held accountable for their actions towards people with learning disabilities. If the ombudsman’s report does not name the medical professionals, I will name them in the House of Commons. Bringing such individuals to account is the right thing to do. As the report notes, it is essential to give people dignity and to treat them as individuals.
Finally, I hope that the Minister can exercise influence over this long-standing case-Martin passed away in 2005, and the “Death by Indifference” report was published in 2007. Naming the individuals would give closure to the Ryan family, and it would be in the public interest.