Families’ group slams organs retention inquiry

A team tasked with investigating the retention of organs by hospitals has been criticised by a group representing families affected by the scandal.

Voicing her disappointment, Parents for Justice chairperson Fionnuala O’Reilly said only a small number of the 1800 members of the group have been asked and given testimony to the inquiry team headed by barrister Anne Dunne.

The team began work in March 2001 but has yet to complete its report. It’s estimated the inquiry has cost 4.5m so far, 1.3m more than the three-year Ansbacher probe.

A report was due last October but Ms Dunne requested and was granted an extension to this September.

It is unlikely to be handed over to the Government next month. Ms Dunne is to meet Health Minister Micheál Martin in early September to talk about the progress of the inquiry. In June, she said the report would not be finished for some time.

Ms O’Reilly said: “We are in the process of canvassing our members for their views on the Dunne inquiry.

“Reading through those responses, people are just fed up at the delays. The trauma is ongoing for them.”

She said she was dissatisfied with the inquiry, which was initiated after revelations organs were removed from dead bodies and retained by hospitals without the knowledge of relatives.

“A small number of members have given testimony.The majority have not been given the opportunity,” Ms O’Reilly said, adding most the affected families want that opportunity.

The committee has no idea about the inquiry’s terms of reference or if there is a pattern being followed in relation to who is interviewed, Ms O’Reilly said.

She is questioning a confidentiality statement those who give testimony are asked to sign. Ms O’Reilly has not signed the document, which bars any discussion on information heard or read during the course of the inquiry.

She said: “Some people were presented with this when they went to give evidence. We had been assured no legal representation was needed when giving preliminary oral testimony.

“You are in there on your own and I find it objectionable that you are told you do not need legal representation yet are then presented with this ...document without the benefit of legal advice.”