Role of Department of Health defended

THE chairman of the hepatitis C tribunal yesterday expressed "a deep feeling of sympathy and indeed sorrow" for the victims of the scandal.

Mr Justice Thomas Finlay was speaking on his own behalf and that of the tribunal team as the hearings ended yesterday afternoon on the inquiry's 27th day.

The tribunal report is expected to be available by the end of this month.

Mr Justice Finlay said that, having heard the consequences of "this awful event" over the past three months, he wished to express his "extreme admiration" for those victims who had given evidence and for the manner in which they had met their contribution to the tribunal. They had done so "with rare courage and great moderation", he said.

The chairman also complimented the lawyers "on every side and in every case" for the "highly efficient and extremely worthwhile co-operation" they had shown. He referred to the "remarkably full preparation of documents" from discovery and thanked all those people who had made this possible.

He made an order allowing costs to all parties which had been granted representation.

In his final submission to the tribunal, Mr John Coughlan, counsel for the Department of Health, said that when his clients first heard of the tragedy "it was apparent to officials that it was unprecedented in depth and scale". Their response was likewise, he said, and "any criticism [of the Department] should be considered in that context". The subsequent screening programme, covering anti-D recipients from 1970 to 1994, was one of the most extensive ever undertaken, "certainly in Europe", he said.

He drew attention to the health package put in place by the Department, ensuring free medical care for victims, the ex gratia payments scheme it had introduced, the compensation tribunal it had set up, which had not occurred anywhere else in Europe, and the ongoing research programme into hepatitis C which it was funding.

The Department had "attempted to deal cordially" with inquiries from each group (representing victims). It had funded the examination of the Blood Transfusion Service Board, undertaken in the Bain report, and had since been active in implementing its recommendations. It had addressed the problems at the National Drugs Advisory Board and had set up a new licensing authority.

Mr CoughIan felt the decision to set up an expert group in March 1994 had been "a reasonable and rational decision" at the time. The charging of the BTSB with conducting the hepatitis C screening programme was "appropriate", as it was "the only body which could have carried out the screening".

When some victims had problems with being counselled by the BTSB, independent counsellors had been put in place.

Addressing the issue of the letter which the BTSB wanted to circulate to GPs in April 1994 concerning a likely second source of infection (Donor Y), and the Department's refusal to approve this, he said that there had been concerns about the adequacy of the information contained in the letter. The matter had not been "dealt with flippantly or capriciously", he said.

He disagreed with an assertion made on Monday by Mr Bernard Grogan, counsel for Transfusion Positive, that the Department's chief medical officer at the time, Dr Niall Tierney, had seemed "obsessed" with following the British example on introducing a hepatitis C test. "It was not an obsession, it was policy", Mr Coughlan said. Both countries were believed to have the lowest infectivity levels for hepatitis C in Europe and Britain had a more extensive research programme than we did, he said.