12 Facts About Cartwright Inquiry

Cartwright Inquiry said that if at any stage concern was felt for the safety of a patient, a cone biopsy would be performed.

District Court Judge Silvia Cartwright was appointed by warrant dated 10 June 1987 as a Committee of Inquiry to inquire into the treatment of cervical cancer at the National Women's Hospital and other matters.

Judge Cartwright Inquiry heard evidence privately from a further 70 patients.

When news of the neonatal study broke during the Cartwright Inquiry, there was a public furore, as no provision for parental knowledge or consent had been made.

Recommendations in the Report of the Cervical Cancer Cartwright Inquiry 1988 contributed to sweeping changes in law and practice around health and disability services' consumers' rights in the 1990s and beyond.

Related searches

Cartwright Inquiry Report recommended that the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 be amended to provide for a statement of patients' rights, and the appointment of a Health Commissioner.

Cartwright Inquiry Report recommended setting in place a system of regional ethics committees, focused on the protection of patients, independent of hospitals, of which half the members would be lay people.

Valerie Smith said "She now realised after listening to the Solicitor General's submissions that she was wrong in thinking Judge Cartwright Inquiry had relied on a Metro magazine article in her findings" and realised that Cartwright Inquiry had not misinterpreted the McIndoe paper.

Cartwright Inquiry was widely celebrated as one of the most important leaps forward in women's rights in New Zealand.

The Cartwright Inquiry hastened the introduction of cervical screening which was already being considered by the Health Department and Cancer Society prior to the Cartwright Inquiry, following recommendations by a working party chaired by Skegg.

Reforms initiated changes in ethics committees recommended by the Cartwright Inquiry and introduced the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner six years after the Cartwright Inquiry.

In 2009 University of Auckland Professor of History, Professor Linda Bryder, published an account of Green's study, arguing against almost every aspect of the Report, and defending Green's claims to the Cartwright Inquiry that there was no experiment and that his 'treatment' was not 'unfortunate, ' but was a cautious approach reflective of medical uncertainties relating to the significance of positive smears and concerns about over-treatment.