This week, Ruth Coppinger TD raised a case of Maeve (not her real name) who claimed she was raped at UCD, became pregnant and had a termination and because of the termination she couldn’t sit her medical exams. Coppinger and Maeve alleged that UCD refused to accommodate her. This might make for a sympathetic story but it is not what happened.
What actually happened can be found in the high court judgment of the case. Here is the link to the full judgment of the High Court given by Mrs Justice Marguerite Bolger, having heard all the evidence.
It was found by the High Court that once UCD Medical School were told of the alleged rape and termination suffered by the student “in October 2023, they responded fairly and sympathetically and immediately recognised the impact that those events had on her ability to attend or pass her May 2023 exams. The plaintiff was awarded special grades.”
Accommodations were in fact made on foot of the alleged rape but it was the medical student herself who disengaged with an academic plan that would have aided her in sitting her medical exams and continuing with her degree. They did not ‘block’ her from sitting her exams.
This is how the Irish Examiner puts it, in the version of the story that, thanks to Coppinger, has become widely accepted:
“The medical student claimed she was raped in 2023, got pregnant, and then had to get an abortion, which left her unable to sit her exams.
According to Maeve, she has not been permitted by UCD to progress with her education since September 2023 unless she agreed to drop back one year.
Speaking in the Dáil last week, People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger said the student had to take UCD to the High Court over not being allowed to sit her exams.
“She became pregnant, and she had to get a termination, and she had to miss some of her medical exams,” Ms Coppinger said. “She asked UCD if she could sit her exams in the summer. UCD said no and they attempted to make her drop back a year. She hasn’t been able to continue her medical degree since 2023, as UCD has blocked her from doing so,” Ms Coppinger said.”
This is grossly misleading.
The student had in fact struggled for some time with her modules before the rape and termination, which is alleged to have happened in February 2023. In fact the student had missed much time and failed three exams, more than half of her total, in the preceding term – a fact omitted by Deputy Coppinger and almost all media coverage. UCD Medical School made some accommodations.
After the alleged rape, they were not told the nature of the trauma then suffered by the medical student and once they were – rape and abortion – further accommodations were made. UCD Medical School were in continuous communication with the student but she outright refused to engage in the way they deemed necessary for her to complete the degree with integrity. The student then took a case to the High Court, where she categorically lost.
Ms Justice Bolger: “Since the proceedings were amended, the plaintiff was afforded two opportunities to sit exams for the six unremediated modules, in September 2024 and again in May 2025. The plaintiff did not sit the exams on either occasion for reasons I explore further below.”
It has since emerged that Meave also had very disturbing images of her circulated in UCD. This I believe is a somewhat separate issue to the issue of how Maeve was treated by UCD Medical School before that event and was not a subject of the judgment.
The Irish Examiner: “The young student, Maeve (not her real name), said she received little support from the university after her alleged rape. She did not report the incident to gardaí because she thought she would not be believed.”
Why didn’t she think she would be believed? There is a criminal justice system in Ireland and people who are charged with rape are tried. Some are convicted, some are not. We do not operate in a medieval system of law where we just believe every allegation made or indeed turf a suspect into water and see if he/she sinks or swims (sinking means innocent, floating means guilty, as the water has rejected the guilty party. A catch-22 if you ask me.)
Never to be knowingly out done in the issuing statements before knowing the facts Minister Jack Chambers also jumped on this bandwagon. Minister Jack Chambers called on UCD to allow her to complete her studies. “She has gone through enough. I was shocked, as indeed everyone in this House has been, about what she has been subjected to. It is incumbent on every public institution to work with her so she can complete her studies. She has gone through enough,” he said.
The Minister should know better. It should not need to be said but medical degrees actually matter. They are not like arts degrees or degrees in women’s studies or gender studies. The integrity of medical degrees are important. If you are in a tough labour, if your newborn baby is struggling to breathe, if you are receiving open heart surgery you will want your doctor to have the appropriate qualifications for the job. You will not want them to have been awarded a degree because Ruth Coppinger TD or Minister Jack Chambers TD want to score political points.
The alleged rape and termination of pregnancy must have been traumatic for Maeve. But these experiences do not imbue her suddenly with the medical knowledge she needs to pass her medical degree (a highly competitive and demanding degree). You don’t suddenly understand the basics of heart failure following a highly traumatic event.
So far Minister Carroll McNeill, alone it seems amongst commenting politicians, has not lost her common sense on this issue. She said the Medical Council has a “responsibility to ensure that everybody in the doctor profession, including those in the UCD medical school, meet the required standards for medical education.” Yup, they sure do.
This is what we know from the High Court judgment: The student was struggling with her medical degree from the start. Mrs Justice Bolger: “The plaintiff said in her witness statement that she progressed without any difficulty in her first year and did not encounter any challenges until her second year. However, early in her first year in university, in November 2021, the plaintiff requested a meeting with someone in her school to discuss an immediate leave of absence.” At 27.
The student had a disability which she was accommodated for. The judge preferred the evidence of Professor S over the student saying “Prof S sought to support the plaintiff.” In Autumn 2022, the plaintiff’s mother suffered an injury in an accident which required the plaintiff to care for her at home and this affected her attendance at university.
The Judge at paragraph 33 summed up events. “I highlight the contents of those applications as they confirm, on the plaintiff’s own account, that the plaintiff was experiencing negative emotional well-being and was struggling with her education before February 2023. By February 2023, she had failed three core modules, had not attended the majority of her classes in the previous term, had been given an academic plan, was assigned to an academic mentor and was looking to be assessed in a manner other than resitting the exams she had failed in December.”
After this the student alleged she was raped which necessitated a termination and her missing more exams. I’ll quote in full:
“Between February and May 2023, the plaintiff experienced very traumatic events. I will use the language from the Gilchrist order of O’Connor J in saying that the plaintiff makes an allegation of assault by an unidentified student in late February 2023, which had consequences for her studies and exams. In May 2023, she availed of medical services following the alleged assault. She was due to sit eight exams between 8 and 18 May, some of which clashed with the aforesaid medical services. The plaintiff passed two of her exams and either failed or did not attend six, including some of the modules she had previously failed in December 2022. That left her with six outstanding modules for stage 2 that she needed to remediate, representing half of her total modules for the year. The evidence confirmed that this was an unusually high number of unremediated modules for a student to be carrying, well above the more usual circumstances in which a student might have to remediate one or some modules. Ms F, the Director of the University’s disability support service, said: “There are very, very occasions, if any, that I can think of in my 25 years where a student has been looking to remediate so many modules. I’ve never come across it.” (transcript, day 5, page 134/135.)
On 24 May 2023, the plaintiff made a fresh exceptional circumstances application relating to the May exams. She submitted a very brief letter from her GP who said they had been informed that the plaintiff had been recently unwell during the exam period and that the plaintiff felt her performance was impaired by her health. Whilst the plaintiff said in her subsequent application for exceptional circumstances that her GP had declared her “categorically and medically unfit” to sit her exams, the GP’s letter that the plaintiff had relied on in her application of 25 May 2023, did not confirm any such certification or diagnosis. That application was refused.”
So it is simply not true that the university made no attempt to accommodate or support Maeve. The university changed its position once information on the termination became known and further accommodations were made. However, the student still didn’t want to engage with the necessary academic plan.
Mrs Justice Bolger: “On 12 October 2023, the plaintiff informed the student adviser, Ms K, with whom she had been engaging on a confidential basis, of the nature of her medical treatment in May 2023 and gave Ms K permission to disclose this to the University. Almost immediately on this information being brought to the attention of the school and the relevant committee, the plaintiff’s exceptional circumstances application was granted and on 20 October 2023, she was informed that she was granted special grades in respect of her six outstanding stage 2 modules.” At 47.
This is how the judge described the academic plan: “The academic plan of October 2023 did not require remediation of all six outstanding modules in order to progress, but delayed the plaintiff’s progress to stage 3 until a specified number of modules had been successfully remediated, which inevitably resulted in a change to the plaintiff’s anticipated progress through her degree programme and her planned graduation in 2027. That is the consequence of a significant number of failed modules, regardless of the grant of special grades or the circumstances that gave rise to them. It is very clear from the detail of the plan and the evidence given by the academic staff involved, that the plan represented a substantial amount of work and was done to support the plaintiff in managing her workload and to try to ensure her success rather than more of the academic failure she had experienced in December 2022 and again in May 2023 at a time when she admitted to having difficulties attending class and studying. (at 52 – 53.)
The judge sums up the situation at paragraph 58.
“A delay in progressing through a degree programme may have negative consequences for a student, which may have to be addressed by the University depending on the circumstances, but the fact that there is a negative consequence does not and cannot entitle a student to be subjected to a lesser academic rigour or a lesser monitoring of their workload, as applied by the student’s academic superiors in the exercise of their academic judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
This is the heart of the matter. The likes of Ruth Coppinger TD seem to believe that standards can be lowered and requirements abandoned on their say so. This ignores the fact that once you lower standards or abandon requirements in a medical degree you put the public – you and I – at risk.
AT 64. “I do not consider that the university could, or should, have addressed the plaintiff’s situation in any way other than as they did. They have obligations about the plaintiff’s workload and the quality and integrity of her degree.”
The judge also found that, “The plaintiff’s stated excuses for not sitting the September 2024 exams are unconvincing and groundless in fact. The plaintiff’s stated excuses for not sitting the May 2025 exams are unconvincing and unacceptable.”
Mrs Justice Bolger:
“What happened to the plaintiff between February and May 2023 was deeply traumatic for her and, in her own words, her life fell apart. Once the University was told in October 2023, they responded fairly and sympathetically and immediately recognised the impact that those events had on her ability to attend or pass her May 2023 exams. The plaintiff was awarded special grades. Thereafter, the plaintiff formed the erroneous view that this rendered her immune from any monitoring of her workload and from the imposition of an academic plan and gave her rights to input into how she was to remediate and to do so by way of direct communication with each of her module coordinators. Those rights were never part of her agreement with the University.
An immunity from a workload review would have directly contradicted the University’s obligations to her to monitor her workload and ensure it was sustainable for her. The University was entitled to impose the academic plan that it did, having liaised with her module coordinators, and to seek to consult with the plaintiff around which of the three options formulated for her she wished to choose.
It was the plaintiff’s decision not to engage with that plan, as it was her decision not to sit the remediation exams arranged for her in September 2024 and May 2025. Those decisions had and continue to have consequences for the plaintiff and her progress through her degree programme, which are of her making and are not the fault of the University or its academic staff. The school’s academics have tried to support the plaintiff and assist her in remediating her outstanding modules in a way that would enable them to stand over her progress, as is necessary in a student/academic relationship that is, of its nature, hierarchical and focused on the validation of a student’s achievement of the academic excellence that their degree represents. The plaintiff has had very traumatic experiences but that does not and cannot dilute either the academic standards required of her or the school’s obligation to determine the achievement of learning outcomes necessary to allow progress to the next stage of the degree programme for which they are responsible.”
It was found by a High Court judge that it was the medical student herself who disengaged with an academic plan that would have aided her in sitting her medical exams and continuing with her degree.
The student spoke to the Irish Times over the weekend.” Asked what she needed from UCD to overcome what has happened, the woman says: “I’d like them to show me some solidarity, support me through this and help me get my life back on track.
“At the end of all this, I want to become a doctor.”
Then she should abide by the academic plan and sit her exams.
If Ruth Coppinger TD wants to be able to award medical degrees then she should seek a place at a medical school, complete the 6 year degree, complete the placement requirements and then devote decades of her life to becoming Dr Ruth Coppinger Phd, expert in otolaryngology and ophthalmology or autoimmune disease or pancreatic cancer or whatever her speciality will be.
Until she becomes a Fellow of the RCPI (Royal College of Physicians) she should not dictate to medical schools such as that at University College Dublin as to how and who they award degrees to. She owes UCD Medical School an apology.
