A former chief medical officer of the Blood Transfusion Service Board admitted yesterday that a look-back programme, tracing potentially infectious donations, should have been carried out in 1987 when he considered the issue with other board officials.
Dr Vincent Barry agreed it had been "medically necessary" to conduct such a look-back and said it "would have been nice" if he had done it. However, he said, he had not had time as he had been due to retire at the end of 1987, within months of the issue being considered.
He told the tribunal that in July 1987 he prepared a briefing document on look-back guidelines on the instructions of the chief executive officer, Mr Ted Keyes. He said he forwarded this to Pelican House and received a phone call some time later to say "thank you for your letter but we are leaving it stand for the moment".
He said he did not pursue the issue further despite receiving a document from fellow BTSB consultant Dr Terry Walsh giving details of a number of suspect donors. Dr Barry said he did not request this information. Dr Walsh has given evidence to the contrary.
Asked who called him saying the look-back issue was being let "lie", Dr Barry said he could not recall but it was probably Dr Walsh or Mr Keyes. He later accepted it was not Dr Walsh, however, having been told the Dublin-based consultant would testify he never made such a phone call.
Dr Barry was also questioned about the BTSB's failure to conduct a look-back in the case of an HIV-positive donor whose untested platelets had been issued to Wexford General Hospital and transfused to an elderly woman patient in December 1985.
Asked why he had not checked the donor's file to see where his blood had been sent, Dr Barry replied: "I would have done it if there was time."
Also giving evidence yesterday was Dr James Kirrane, a former part-time external consultant to the BTSB. Counsel for the Irish Haemophilia Society, Mr Raymond Bradley, put it to Dr Kirrane that a statement he had made to the effect that he had no involvement in the production of factor concentrates conflicted with his evidence to the Finlay tribunal.
Dr Kirrane agreed there was a difference in testimony. He said the comments to the Finlay tribunal had been made when, in an effort to be helpful, he found himself answering questions beyond his remit.
