Pelvic Mesh Awareness

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:44): I rise today to inform the chamber that I had the privilege of co-hosting an event this morning in this place, which was the Pelvic Mesh Awareness Morning Tea. I did so as co-host with the member for Torrens, Dana Wortley MP, and the member for Frome, Geoff Brock MP—so one Liberal, one Labor, one Independent. It was done deliberately that way so that it was a non-partisan presentation. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of a number of other MPs there this morning, including the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Emily Bourke, the member for Lee, the member for Light, the member for Hurtle Vale and the Hon. Mr Justin Hanson. The health minister sent a senior member of his staff as well.

It was well attended right across the political spectrum and I think that sends the right message but also a clear message that there is widespread parliamentary support for, first of all, acknowledging the seriousness of the condition that can result from the insertion of these devices, the complications of which can be very serious, which I learnt more about today. In fact, some of them were really quite extraordinary in terms of the extent of suffering that these devices had caused on the women who gave their evidence.

I should point out that these issues or complications as a result of the insertion of these devices are not limited only to women. It is, of course, more common in women because women more commonly receive insertions of these devices, but it can also occur in men. In fact, one of the ladies who today gave her account mentioned the impact it also had on her husband. He had one inserted to deal with a hernia and also had a number of problems.

We were also joined by the Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group and medical professionals, with whom I had the privilege of meeting and discussing their experiences. One of the senior doctors gave an account that he refused to insert these devices. He did not give specific reasons but I think it is not unreasonable to ascertain from what he implied that he did not essentially trust them, is how I took it. When you have senior medical people making assertions or giving such impressions, then I think, clearly, there is cause for us as a society, and indeed us as a parliament, to take this very seriously.

By way of background, pelvic mesh was introduced in the 1990s to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It was then adapted to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In terms of what it is, it is a permanent synthetic mesh implant that is made from polypropylene or a bio material like porcine. It is surgically implanted into the vaginal wall to help support pelvic muscles. As I said though, it can also be inserted into males. The problem is what happens when it is in there. It is supposed to be a lifelong insert and what can happen is the mesh can actually harden or erode. It can shrink, it can become entwined with soft tissue and even lead to organ perforation, causing acute and chronic pain, infection and neuromuscular problems.

One of the ladies today gave an account of how it had induced very debilitating psoriasis in her particular circumstances. It led to profound problems with intercourse and led to a collapse of intimacy in their marriage. She specifically blamed the insertion of this device as the trigger, over a very long period of time, which eventually resulted in the collapse of her marriage. It has not only a very significant physical health impact on individuals where things go wrong with these things but there are also very significant emotional impacts and what you might call social consequences as well.

The precise number of women in particular in Australia who have had mesh implants is unknown, but it is estimated to be somewhere between 150,000 and 175,000 people, so it is a very substantial number of women. This is only the women: that does not include the men. Similarly, there is no certainty of the number experiencing complications from pelvic mesh because there is no mandatory reporting requirement for surgeons and hospitals. That is, the way the Medicare system is coded, as I understand, it is not quite clear how many of these implants have occurred and therefore it is not quite clear how many of these complications have occurred as a result of the insertion of these devices.

In terms of remedy, the Australian Senate inquiry into the number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters was conducted in 2017 and its report was published in March this year. There is so much more that I can say but I am out of time, but it is a very serious matter indeed.