Clotting agent cover-up hid the truth from patients

Norman, the last of seven haemophilia B patients to test positive for HIV, had his suspicions that he was infected by clotting…

Norman, the last of seven haemophilia B patients to test positive for HIV, had his suspicions that he was infected by clotting agent made at Pelican House, but he went to his grave not knowing for sure.

His wife, giving testimony last May under the pseudonym Mary, told the tribunal how he had kept two bottles of the batch of blood product which he believed contaminated him.

Both bore Blood Transfusion Service Board labels, indicating that the Factor 9 clotting agent was locally made, rather than imported commercial concentrate which at the time was believed to have been responsible for most, if not all, infections.

Frustrated at failed attempts to find out the truth Norman, who had been a patient at St James's Hospital in Dublin, threw the bottles away in 1990, three years before he died.

READ MORE

Yesterday the tribunal learned that his suspicions could have been confirmed to him as early as August 1986, the month that he tested positive, if only he had been told. The BTSB knew then that untreated Pelican House Factor 9 had caused him and the other haemophilia B patients to be infected. But it chose not to tell them. Nor did it inform the National Drugs Advisory Board.

Nor, through many years of litigation by haemophiliacs against a range of parties, including pharmaceutical companies and the BTSB, did the board publicly acknowledge the source of infections. In fact, the first time the BTSB admitted its Factor 9 product was responsible was at the tribunal last month.

Yesterday Dr Terry Walsh, former chief medical consultant to the board, said he had no answer as to why patients were not told at the time. He said he was sure doctors had been informed and it was their duty to keep their patients briefed.

However, he conceded that to the best of his knowledge the board took no steps to ensure this occurred.

The tribunal has already heard that at least one senior treater, Prof Ernest Egan, in Galway, learned of the infections from a third party rather than from the board. In fact, he had been told by Prof Ian Temperley, director of the National Haemophilia Treatment Centre, who had initially told the BTSB of the source of the infections.

Something playing on the board's mind at the time may have been the negative publicity likely to have been generated by admitting exactly what had occurred.

On his first day of evidence last Friday, Dr Walsh said a feeling existed within both the BTSB and the Department of Health that panic might have ensued if the public had become aware of the possible contamination with HIV of an anti-D product which was recalled in December 1985. Dr Walsh had been explaining why he had referred to the HIV scare in a letter to Prof Egan as "a quality control problem".

Yesterday Dr Walsh expanded on this concern, saying blood supplies had been compromised by negative publicity over the "very emotive subject" of HIV. He was being questioned about a quote attributed to him in a newspaper article in January 1987 saying there were "no new cases of AIDS antibodies showing up in Irish haemophiliacs".

Dr Walsh accepted the interview gave no indication as to what happened to the seven haemophilia B patients. He further accepted that the opening paragraph of the Sunday Tribune article, which said there had been no positive tests since 1985, gave "a very inaccurate picture".

He stressed, however, that he was not the only person who was interviewed for the piece. Prof Temperley and the Irish Haemophilia Society had also been approached.

Earlier Dr Walsh was questioned on the recall notice which he sent out to hospitals in June 1986 asking for all Factor 9 which had not been heat-treated to be returned to Pelican House. Because it was an urgent matter, he said, he issued the notice without consulting anyone, although he did speak to Dr Vincent Barry, then chief medical consultant, a week or two later.

Asked why the hospitals were not contacted immediately by telephone, as with the anti-D recall, Dr Walsh said that "could have been a consideration" but he felt the written notice was appropriate as it was unlikely much of the product was still being stocked.