BTSB delayed writing to donors

Two blood donors whose blood tested positive for HIV were not contacted by the Blood Transfusion Service for four months afterwards…

Two blood donors whose blood tested positive for HIV were not contacted by the Blood Transfusion Service for four months afterwards, the tribunal was told.

The board's chief medical witness, Dr Emer Lawlor, agreed this was not a satisfactory situation and they should have been contacted more quickly.

However, she said donors could not be written to once a HIV test at Pelican House tested positive. The virus reference laboratory would have to confirm the result. She said it was a serious issue as donors who were told they were positive might commit suicide.

Counsel for the tribunal, Mr Gerard Durcan SC, said they would hardly commit suicide on the basis of the letter they received from the BTSB. These letters told donors one of several tests on their blood had given an unusual result and asked them for the name of their GP with whom they could discuss it.

READ MORE

He put it to her that two donors, Donor B who donated in early November 1985 and Donor C who donated in early December 1985, were written to on February 27th, 1986, to be told tests on their blood yielded unusual results.

Asked why they weren't contacted earlier, Dr Lawlor said donors should have been written to once the final test, the Western Blot test, was carried out. She felt there was a delay with the virus reference laboratory setting up the test. However, she admitted the letters weren't written as soon as the results became available. For one of the donors, results were available on January 15th, 1986.

It also emerged there weren't always copies of the "Important Message to Donors" available at donation clinics. These leaflets asked donors to excuse themselves from donating if they felt they were in at-risk categories for AIDS. Donors were asked before donating if they had read this message. The form of one donor who tested HIV positive was opened to the tribunal and it noted over this question: "No messages to read."

Dr Lawlor said she believed it was the donor attendant who would have written this to let head office know more leaflets were needed.

Mr Durcan suggested to her the question to donors about whether or not they read the important message wasn't very clear in early donation forms.