THE former medical director of the Blood Transfusion Service Board feared being made a scapegoat of the hepatitis C scandal, according to notes of a meeting he attended in November 1994.
Mr Fergal Lynch, assistant principal officer at the Department of Health, and the secretary of the Miriam Hederman O'Brien Expert Group, which investigated the scandal, told the tribunal of inquiry that his notes were a recollection of the meeting between the group and Dr Terry Walsh.
The notes said Dr Walsh accepted responsibility for events after 1988 but feared being scapegoated.
"Concern re rumours that he be made the scapegoat accept medical responsibility for everything since 1988 . . . did not know in 1977 that plasma was used from a hepatitis donor," the notes said.
Mr Lynch's notes also recorded that hepatitis B testing had not been done on patient X's plasma at Crumlin Hospital or Pelican House in 1976. The plasma would have been tested if the plasmapheresis (cell separation) had been done at Pelican House, the notes said.
Mr Lynch agreed with Mr Paul Gallagher SC, counsel for the BTSB that Dr Walsh had accepted at a March 25th meeting that it was wrong to use plasma from a patient with jaundice.
The tribunal heard evidence from a Department official who prepared a document on the law relating to medicinal product licensing for the expert group in 1995. He denied it was information on product authorisation licensing.
Mr John Gillen, a public health division official, did not know who had asked him to prepare the document, Summary of Main Legislative Provisions Relating to the Regulation of Medicinal Products, in May 1995.
He did not believe he had looked at the Therapeutic Substances Act 1932, as he had used the phrase, "pituitary hormones", which was not used in the Act.
Mr Rory Brady SC, counsel for the tribunal, said a section of the expert group report was nearly identical to Mr Gillen's document.
"It is your evidence that you did not look at this schedule [Therapeutic Substances Act] before preparing the document?" Mr Brady asked.
"I am quite satisfied I did not look at that schedule before preparing the document," Mr Gillen replied. The list of medicinal product types in his document was illustrative.
He did not know which product type anti D would come under. The 1932 Act was no longer in force after 1992, he added. But he had specifically included a reference to the Act because anti D had a licence under the Act, and in all probability the expert group knew this.
"I had no reason to believe that they did not know. A number of official from the Public Health Division appeared before the expert group who would have known," he said.