Amidst everything else that's going on and close to home, the issue in recent days has been hospitals.
How do we square up to the story that as many as 250 women at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital were involved in a trial using the stomach ulcer drug misoprostol to induce labour at full term?
Equally, how could we not be told what redress these women have?
And how can it be recommended and even used in a trial when allegedly the drug's manufacturer warned against using it in inducing labour?
And this was way back in 2000.
And then we're told that other hospitals have used the drug for the same purpose.
And one woman whose newborn baby died at the Royal Hospital for Women in 1997 thinks she was experimented on without consent.
Another has successfully sued Wagga Wagga Hospital for three quarters of a million after her son was born in 2001 with severe cerebral palsy.
Then we're told that doctors responsible for the trial may not have obtained the consent of all the mothers and went ahead without telling the drug watchdog, the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
We're told 12 other women are considering legal action.
That could be millions of dollars in compensation.
But 250 women all up took part in the so-called trial and some women hadn't signed consent forms to take part.
A lawyer for the woman who successfully sued for three quarters of a million is quoted as saying, "Some signed forms, some didn't. But irrespective of whether forms were signed, a significant issue was whether they were provided with adequate information about the drug ...".
The lawyer went on, "The feelings of some people have been that they were given no choice as to the use of the drug."
Now there are protocols which apply here.
The approval for drug trials first involves seeking approval from a local ethics committee, bodies made up of medical professionals and lay people.
And all that's supposed to be reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration and it's supposed to play the role of overseer.
The drug's manufacturer is reported to have said that Wagga Wagga Hospital's Ethics Committee approved the drug in 1999.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration says it's got no record of being informed.
But there are three key points here.
One, in August 2000 the maker of misoprostol, Searle, since acquired by Pfizer, warned against using this drug during pregnancy because it could cause unwanted abortions and birth defects.
And it said the effects on the later growth and the development of the child had not been established.
So the first point is not only the warning, but what the hell is such a drug doing on the market in the first place.
Secondly, this is a State hospital.
Why is the State Health Department refusing to release details on how many hospitals have used the drug.
It's marketed by Cytotec, and Cytotec's warnings say it "must not be used by pregnant women ...".
How can the Health Department get away by refusing to release details on how many hospitals have used the drug?
But the third point overtakes all others.
How has anyone got away with this?
We're happy to protest in the streets about the most stupid things.
How is it that the public, the medical profession and Government aren't up in arms about all of this.
Or is public administration so bad that nothing surprises any more.
