Question reference: S5W-07739
- Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
- Date lodged: 6 March 2017
-
Current status: Answered by Shona Robison on 20 March 2017
Question
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the Chief Medical Officer said in December 2016 that there was no other alternative treatments for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse other than mesh when, prior to mesh being developed from the late 1990s, it is understood that non-mesh treatments were the most common form of treatment.
Answer
This does not accurately reflect the Chief Medical Officer’s position. In 2014 the Acting Chief Medical Officer wrote to all Health boards requesting that they consider the suspension of the use of mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In doing so, the Acting chief Medical Officer asked that, before coming to a decision, Health Boards carefully consider evidence relating to both mesh treatments and its alternatives. The present Chief Medical Officer further wrote to Health boards in 2015 to confirm that the request to suspend procedures remained in place, and also to direct Health Boards to the Patient Information and Consent Leaflet, which notes all alternative treatments in relation to stress urinary incontinence.