It can hardly come as a surprise that the Director of Public Prosecutions is to take no further action arising out of the report of the Finlay tribunal on the scandalous events which led to a large outbreak of hepatitis C infection among women who had received anti-D products from the Blood Transfusion Service Board. Cynics may even argue that the previous coalition government referred the matter to the DPP to divert public anger from itself, yet the present Minister for Health, who was so vocally belligerent on the issue while in opposition, has deemed it inappropriate to pass any comment on the decision taken now by the DPP.
It will equally come as no surprise that there will be varying degrees of disappointment and anger at the decision. The women whose lives were so grievously blighted by the scandal cannot but remain angry that no retribution has been visited upon those responsible for the negligence (admitted tardily by the Blood Transfusion Service Board, identified publicly by the clarity of Mr Justice Finlay's report from the tribunal) which so painfully and adversely damaged them and their families. They had, after all, sought what should have been the wholly beneficial treatment with anti-D for the benefit of their families.
In their search for redress they had further suffered from a mixture of indifference, defensiveness, threat and obfuscation from the institutions ultimately responsible for their disaster. Neither the State nor its supposedly caring and health-giving organisations have come out of this appalling affair with much credit. And now the DPP finds it impossible to take criminal proceedings against anyone involved. Small wonder, then, that a residue of disappointment, resentment and anger must remain. The sense of victimisation may even have been increased among those most understandably looking for retribution.
Yet the difficulties facing the DPP were considerable. First, after reading the Finlay report, and the transcripts of evidence placed before the tribunal, and a report from the Garda asked to investigate the matter, it would be necessary to identify exactly what crimes had been committed in terms of statute criminal law. Then - much more problematically - would come the assessment of the evidence available sufficient to convince a court that any defendants would be likely to be found guilty of whatever crimes had been identified.
The fact is that the legal remedies available in the State for the kind of catastrophe disclosed in the anti-D and hepatitis C debacle are not satisfactory. The original, and ultimately politically damaging, defensiveness demonstrated by the government and its agencies was almost certainly the result of our exclusively adversarial legal system. And the criminal law, to judge from the DPP's decision, does not adequately cover the matter either. There would seem, on the face of it, to be a strong case for a detailed examination of what alternative structures and what new legislation are required here to meet effectively, humanely and efficiently the needs of the victims of such disasters as this one. Perhaps the Law Reform Commission might constructively be asked to consider the issues?