There are fears that the Dunne inquiry into the retention of body parts may prove unable to answer the questions posed by parents, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
It is now 15 months since the Government set up an inquiry, under the chairmanship of Ms Anne Dunne SC, into the policies and practices surrounding post-mortems in the State since 1970, particularly with regard to the removal and retention of organs by hospitals.
Ms Dunne does not expect her report, due to go to the Oireachtas Committee on Health for discussion, to be ready for "some considerable time".
That inquiry followed a campaign from the parents of children who had died in hospital, and whose organs had been removed and retained by the hospitals without the consent of the parents. Their anxieties about these practices were fuelled by the revelation, in February 2000, that the pituitary glands harvested from dead children were sold to Pharmacia-Upjohn (formerly Kabi-Vitrum) without the knowledge or consent of parents.
The parents concerned set up the Parents for Justice group in December 1999, seeking a statutory inquiry into what had occurred, and new legislation to cover issues relating to human tissue. This would have added yet another inquiry to the burgeoning industry of inquiries into the failures of various major public and private institutions to treat citizens, especially vulnerable citizens, properly.
The parents wanted a statutory inquiry because it would have the power to order the discovery of documents and compel witnesses to appear before it. However, such an inquiry is much more complex and expensive, because the parties so compelled usually require legal representation and the process inevitably becomes adversarial.
The Minister for Health, Mr Martin, resisted the call for a statutory inquiry, but agreed to an inquiry under the chairmanship of Ms Dunne. It would be public in that its results would be laid before the Oireachtas Committee on Health, but its hearings and all its proceedings would take place in private.
People and institutions would be invited to give evidence to it.
The nature of the inquiry means that, although it has been in operation for over a year, and has received submissions, no one knows who has made submissions or how full and frank such submissions have been. Even the parents do not know the degree of compliance from the bodies involved, including the hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies.
It is not known whether deadlines have been met and, if not, what pressure can be exerted by the inquiry. Therefore it is not possible to even guess whether additional powers will be required to get at the truth.
The deadline for Ms Dunne's report is September. Asked if the report would be ready by then, she told The Irish Times it would not be ready for "some considerable time". Asked who had made submissions and about the level of compliance she said she could not discuss anything about the inquiry so far because it was being conducted in private.
Since the Abbeylara inquiry into the conduct of the gardaí who shot John Carthy was ruled out by the Supreme Court there has been some doubt about the capacity of Oireachtas committees to conduct any inquiries.
The Committee of Health therefore may not be able to discuss the report of the Dunne inquiry. It is awaiting guidance from the Attorney General on the implications of the Abbeylara judgment for the production of its report.
Parents for Justice received legal advice that the report may not be open to discussion by the committee. A senior counsel contacted by The Irish Times thought it probably could, or otherwise the Abbeylara judgment would mean nothing could ever be examined by an Oireachtas committee.
Whatever happens to the report, this phase of the inquiry is shrouded in extreme secrecy. Recently the parents of the children who died (and the group now includes relatives of adults whose organs were retained without consent) received letters requiring them to sign a confidentiality agreement. No explanation was given, and it is not clear what the implications of a refusal are.
The issues at stake are important both for the parents and the public on one side and for hospitals and scientific institutions on the other. It has been argued that science needs human organs for research in order to improve medicine for the living, but that this is not likely to be the first priority of bereaved parents. Parents for Justice do not dispute the need for research, but argue that the issue is the informed consent of relatives and the accountability of institutions in receipt of public money.
It appears it may be some considerable time before these issues can be fully discussed in a public arena.