The Eastern Health Board is to try to trace the estimated 50 women with crisis pregnancies who were referred to a Dublin GP by the counselling agency at the centre of the adoption case controversy. The board wants to know whether the women received appropriate counselling.
The High Court last night granted an application by The Irish Times to be allowed publish the name of the pregnancy counselling agency, but Mrs Justice McGuinness put a stay on the order until 2 p.m. today, to allow counsel for the agency's proprietor to confer with his client about whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Mrs Justice McGuinness ruled that all media were prohibited from publishing anything which would identify the mothers and infants in the case and prohibited the media from making contact with them.
Report of the hearing before Mrs Justice McGuinness on page 6
Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment on the adoption case - brought by the EHB - outlined how "approximately 50" pregnant girls and women were referred by the agency over 1 1/2 years to the GP, including the mother of Baby A at the centre of the case. The GP also examined Baby A and another infant, Baby B, days after they were born. They were brought to the GP by the proprietor of the pregnancy counselling agency and his wife, who had taken possession of both babies.
Ms Justice Laffoy ruled that Baby A was not in the lawful custody of the couple.
A spokeswoman for the EHB, Ms Maureen Browne, said that "matters that arose in the course of the case are being pursued".
She confirmed that the board wrote to various agencies "some time ago" asking them to make contact if they had any concerns about any of their clients receiving inappropriate counselling. The testimony by the GP in the case was that the 21-year-old mother of Baby A telephoned her in May and said she had decided to give up her baby for adoption. She wanted an elective Caesarean section so she would not bond with her baby or see her baby after birth.
The GP consulted a number of friends, some of whom are members of the medical profession, who the GP said shared her interest in "life issues". They all thought the mother needed counselling but the GP did not arrange it.
After the proprietor of the counselling agency and his wife took possession of Baby A, the GP examined the infant in Dublin. The GP testified that earlier this year she also examined Baby B three days after birth, on a referral from the agency.
Baby B was brought to her surgery by the proprietor of the agency and his wife. She believed they hoped to adopt the child.
Four days later a public health nurse telephoned the GP to tell her that she had given Baby B a PKU test. The nurse advised the GP that private adoptions are illegal since last year.