Cervical screening scandal women launch group action
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A DOZEN women yesterday launched a group action for compensation from the hospital involved in Britain's biggest cervical screening scandal.
The women say that Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust has been obstructive and defensive in dealing with claims over the screening disaster which claimed the lives of eight women in whom early signs of cervical cancer were missed.
After exhausting attempts at out-of-court negotiations, the women launched the group action aimed at forcing the Trust to accept its "moral and legal obligations". Appearing before Canterbury County Court yesterday, they argued for interim payments and higher awards than have already been offered.
Solicitor Sarah Harman, who is co-ordinating the women's bid, said: "We had hoped that the claims for compensation would be made outside the courts. But the hospital is being difficult, particularly over interim payments."
Of 75 cases that Ms Harman is dealing with, 15 have so far been settled. Two women have issued proceedings against the Trust, but yesterday saw the launch of the first group case.
Ms Harman cited the example of Pat Dunster, 56, who had pre-cancerous cells overlooked in 1990 and 1995. When abnormalities were finally spotted in 1996, investigation was delayed for four months. Cancer was finally diagnosed in 1997 but by then her cancer was advanced and required radiotherapy and a hysterectomy.
The Trust denied responsibility, saying that the changes were so mild that the average cyto-screener could not have been expected to identify them.
A spokesman for the Trust denied there had been delays. He said: "The average settlement period is just 10 months. There are some cases of genuine dispute and the courts may be needed to resolve these."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments