The CervicalCheck scandal: A Case Study in the Reproduction of Misrecognition and Epistemic Inequality in the Irish State’s Response to Women Seeking Justice

In 2018 it was revealed that hundreds of women in Ireland who had been diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer had not been informed of audit results revealing errors in the reading or reporting of their cervical smear tests prior to their diagnosis. In many cases it was considered that an accurate reading of their smear tests within the state’s CervicalCheck screening programme could have prevented the development of their cervical cancer. The CervicalCheck debacle represented at the time the latest in a long history of catastrophic failures in Irish women’s healthcare, and redress processes surrounding these failures or addressing mistreatment in religious institutions. Throughout these failures and redress processes a common thread was observed in the control and suppression of information and knowledge. Within a Foucauldian governmental framework, and with a particular focus on the discursive and symbolic creation of epistemic status, this study aims to consider the patterns of control that run through the State’s redress processes and how it influences the restoration of recognition and status to victim-survivors. Analysing the parliamentary discourse surrounding the CervicalCheck debacle, the study uses the “Discourse Historical” methodology within Critical Discourse Analysis to establish themes and strategies within the State’s response, and how these differ from or resemble strategies described in accounts of previous redress processes in Ireland. This analysis demonstrates that the State’s response to the CervicalCheck debacle is characterised by a rigid control of the dominant narrative, which is in turn supported by a characterological and epistemic undermining of its critics and of women’s advocates. It also demonstrates that the State’s objective of restoring recognition through these processes is undermined by its need to insulate itself from accountability. Finally, the study demonstrates that the elements of a successful redress process cannot be obtained within rigid institutional structures that are predicated on the evidence of institutional actors and “experts”.