Evidence given by the mother of a baby who died after an operation at Royal Canberra Hospital, if true, would cast doubt on whether those named should hold the positions they do, the ACT coroner said yesterday.
However, the coroner, John Burns, suppressed the evidence, saying it was not relevant to his inquiry as it happened after the events surrounding the death of Brian Lankuts, who died aged five months after an operation on his skull two years ago.
Paddy Bergin and Stuart Littlemore, representing several doctors connected to the case, objected to the evidence saying it made accusations against doctors who were not represented at the inquiry and who had had no formal notification of it.
Counsel for the ACT Board of Health, Pamela Burton, said the mother, Carol Lankuts, had been invited to make a statement about the evidence which would be considered to determine if any action should be taken.
Earlier yesterday, Mrs Lankuts told of having to “”dig and pry” to find out about the treatment of her son and how a solicitor had advised her after the death not to talk to any doctors about it because it would all come out in the inquest.
Mr Lankuts said Brian had had two earlier operations and while she had been visiting him some doctors had looked at him saying they could fix this or that, but they had not spoken to her.
She had had to “”dig and pry” to find out what neurosurgeon Nadana Chandran seeing Brian for. She had been told by nurses that Dr Chandran was treating Brian. After receiving no contact she had telephoned Dr Chandran who had told her that Brian needed an operation on his skull before the age of six months or pressure would build on his brain and he would die.
“”As a mother I didn’t care what he looked like: lumps and bumps or whatever,” she said.
She had gone to Dr Chandran’s rooms with Brian and had not been told two other specialists would be there. The three had had conversations among themselves.
“”They didn’t really talk to me about what the surgery would be,” she said. “”They used a lot of medical terminology.
“”I took their word for what they would do to my son.”
She had been told she would be telephoned after the operation, but many times had been bandied about: six to 12 hours, eight to 10 hours or eight to 12 hours.
“”I told them I trusted them,” she said. “”I left my son’s life in their hands.”
She had wanted to camp out at the operating theatre, but so had her husband, Michael. They couldn’t both, so they had waited at home for the call. At 4.45pm Mrs Lankuts said she could wait no longer and rang.
She had been put through to Dr James Kearney who had told her she had a very sick boy and not to hold out much hope for him.
She, her husband Michael, her father and daughter went in to the hospital.
When she and her husband had seen Brian they had been amazed at his appearance: his head was smaller and forehead flatter. he was more normal in appearance.
Dr Kearney had told them the drugs were not working and did they want treatment continued because it might cause brain damage. Michael had said to do everything. A nurse had taken them to a waiting room.
Later Dr Kearney had told them Brian had died. Treatment tubes had been disconnected so they could say their goodbyes.
Dr Kearney had said the police had been called. Mrs Lankuts said she had no idea why, or why she had had to make a statement.
The four family members sat there.
“”No-one told us what had happened,” she said.
One of the doctors had said that Brian had withstood the surgery very well. Michael had asked how could they say the surgery went well when Brian was dead.
They had met Dr Kearney for 1{ hours the next day, and the subsequent day had sought a meeting with Dr Chandran and got an appointment. However, they had not kept it because they had been advised by a solicitor not to talk to the operating doctors.
They rang the hospital administration and wrote to their local member.
“”No-one wanted to talk to us, so we distributed this piece of paper,” she said.
The statement had gone to a dozen people, but only üThe Canberra Times@ took it up. They had only sent out a statement because they had met a wall of silence.
“”Until that time I took the word of professional people and followed their advice,” she said.
In cross-examination by Mr Littlemore, for Dr Chandran, Garry Dellar, for Dr Kearney, and Ms Bergin, for the two anaethetists, Mrs Lankuts admitted that at one stage Dr Chandran had said he was sorry for what had happened, that Dr Kearney had given her and her husband a chance to ask questions, that they had not kept the appointment to see Dr Chandran because of the solicitor’s advice. Mrs Lankuts could not recall, but did not deny, that Dr Chandran had told her on the day that he did not know why Brian had died, an autopsy might reveal the reason but that was not certain. The inquiry will continue today and into next week.