The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold a complaint from Ms Kath Sansom that an article published in the Irish Independent and independent.ie in December breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice. She did not uphold a complaint under Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment). She has insufficient information to make a decision on some aspects of the complaint.
The Article
The article is about an Irish doctor’s announcement that he is to bypass a ban in Ireland on a type of surgery to treat urinary incontinence in women. It states that he will do so by travelling to Spain on a regular basis “in his own time” to perform the surgery on Irish patients who will avail of an EU travel scheme, facilitated by the HSE.
The doctor is described as being on the board of the European Urogynaecology Association and the founder of the Continence Foundation of Ireland.
The article notes that “the surgery has been paused here since 2018 after several women reported complications”, adding that “Irish consultants” now say there is no reason for the ban “as a series of recommendations which were called for in a review report are all in place.”
The article states that the pause in midurethral mesh surgery “has left women suffering in silence”. The doctor is quoted stating that the surgery, in which a device known as a “sling” is implanted, had “revolutionised care” when introduced 25 years ago. He said that Ireland was “the only country in the world not offering this surgery”.
It quotes a woman who describes the serious impact the condition has on her life. She says she wants the procedure but will not travel and has written to the Minister for Health asking her to act on an oversight group’s report.
The article quotes parliamentary responses from the Minister on the issue. She confirmed that the report of the oversight group had been received early in 2025. She said the issue was “extremely complex” and it was not possible to give a timeline for a decision.
The Complaint
The complainant is the founder of the “Sling the Mesh” campaign group which includes women who experienced adverse effects as a result of mesh surgeries. She asserted that the article presented a biased view “that could mislead women into choosing mesh surgery without understanding the risks or alternatives.” She said it failed to include the voices of women harmed by mesh.
The complainant submitted correspondence exchanged with the publication. She said it was incorrect to state that Ireland was the only country in the world not offering the surgery. She said the slings had been suspended “due to the unacceptable risk of life-altering and often irreversible complications” and questioned the ethics of taking Irish patients abroad “simply because it is legal” when risks remained.
Under Principle 1, she stated that the article failed “to provide a full and accurate picture of the issue”, and that it omitted “critical facts about mesh”. She noted that its removal was “dangerous, complex and often incomplete”.
She said the publication should have disclosed that the doctor featured in the article had done training for a private company that had acquired the mesh sling product and was promoting it.
Under Principle 2, she said the article presented a one sided narrative without distinguishing between fact and opinion. She said by omitting to include information from doctors about alternatives to mesh surgery, and the voices of women harmed by mesh and its removal, readers were denied “a balanced view” to enable them to make informed decisions.
The Response
The publication stated that it was free in the public interest to produce content “at contrasting points on the spectrum of debate”. It referred to other articles it had published previously on mesh surgery which had dealt with how “many women” had experienced “severe” impacts, and provided links to examples.
It noted that the article stated that surgery was paused due to reported complications and, the response continued: “including the mesh eroding through tissue and causing pain infection and nerve damage”. It went on to say that the pause was intended to be temporary to allow for a range of measures to be implemented.
It stated that it wished to give a voice also to women suffering from severe urinary incontinence who feel that the surgery is “the only solution” and want it to be resumed in Ireland. It noted that the doctor and other specialists wanted it to resume “with all the necessary safeguards and protections for patients.”
It stated that it had provided up to date responses from the Minister for Health “who indicated that possible resumption of the surgery is being examined.” It said the article made clear reference to the arrangements under which the doctor was to provide the surgery in Spain.
The response went on to provide details about the background history of the report which the Minister was considering.
It said it had checked the doctor’s claim that Ireland was the only country in which a complete ban remains in place, and that it was satisfied this was correct.
After the complainant rejected what the publication described as its substantive response, it further responded in respect of Principle 2 that it had clearly distinguished between fact and opinion and had not endorsed the doctor’s plans. It said the press was entitled to report on a new development without going into “the pros and cons” of all of the other treatment options.
The Decision
Principle 1. Reporting news of a development in treatment options for a serious and common medical condition is in the public interest, and it is significant that an Irish doctor is to legally provide in the EU surgery that cannot legally be provided in Ireland. The publication’s decision to provide a voice for women who believe mesh surgery is the “only solution” for their suffering is legitimate.
In response to the complaint the publication stated that it was aware “of the many women who have suffered severe and negative impacts from the surgery in the past” and that it had featured their stories in other previously published articles, some of which it appended. Having considered these, the Press Ombudsman notes that one headline refers to patients left with “devastating side effects”, another to a woman’s “excruciating pain” and another to the “constant pain” which led a woman to fundraise to have the mesh removed.
These articles were published some years ago, in 2022 and 2018, and no reference or link to them is included in the complained of article. This article states that “the surgery has been paused here since 2018 after several women reported complications, but seven years on, Irish consultants say there is no reason not to lift the ban as a series of recommendations which were called for in a review report are all in place.”
The Press Ombudsman finds that the reference to “several women” reporting complications is a serious understatement of what the publication itself revealed in the past to have been “many women” reporting extremely adverse impacts.
In its response to the complaint, the publication quotes the “several women reported complications” clause but goes on to complete the sentence with “these included the mesh eroding through tissue and causing pain, infection, and nerve damage.” The Press Ombudsman finds that had this brief contextualising clause appeared in the article it would have provided an element of balance that is otherwise missing. Instead a minimal note on complications is followed by a statement to the effect that all is now in order.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the publication’s reference to “Irish consultants” suggests but does not confirm a united view among relevant professionals that the ban should therefore be lifted. In response to the complaint the publication states that “specialists, including those from the Continence Foundation of Ireland” and “also” the doctor who is to provide the surgery abroad support the resumption. The article itself notes that this doctor is in fact the founder of the Continence Foundation of Ireland.
The article concludes with reference to the Minister for Health’s ongoing consideration of the report. The Minister’s comments are extracted from parliamentary responses and are not a direct response to the publication’s news story. Her officials were, she said, “liaising with stakeholders”. She described the issues to be “extremely complex” and indicated that she could not yet give a timeline for her decisions. The publication states that she has indicated that the surgery may resume. However, the minister’s comments equally suggest the opposite.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication does not give insight into this complexity. It is her view that the article needed for the sake of balance to provide some brief information on the risks, alternatives and harms referred to by the complainant, and that this could have been done without compromising its focus on women who want this surgery and want the ban removed.
As it is, the Press Ombudsman finds that the article does appear to support the case for the removal of the ban. She finds that the article is misleading and distorted and breaches Principle 1 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman has insufficient information with which to make a finding on whether Ireland is unique in its ongoing ban on the surgery. She finds that the publication does as it asserts provide adequate information about the arrangements surrounding the doctor’s proposed provision of the surgery outside of Ireland.
On Principle 2 the Press Ombudsman finds that the complainant does not present evidence of facts being presented as opinion. She accepts the publication’s assertion that there is no breach of the Principle.
The decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.