Blood donors seek closure

With terms of reference agreed between the Minister for Health Micheál Martin and groups representing patients affected by test disclosure delays by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service, it now seems puzzling that the IBTS should call for a different approach.

Both Positive Action and Transfusion Positive agree with the minister on the ground rules for investigating the circumstances under which 28 blood donors were not informed that they had tested positive for hepatitis C in 1991.

That investigation would be carried out by a team of barristers, headed up by a senior counsel. What remained to set it in train was the agreement of the IBTS.

Instead, they want the establishment of a full judicial inquiry, not just relating to the hepatitis C tests conducted between 1991 and 1993, but also the timing of notification of test results to blood donors between 1991 and 2002.

Screening for hepatitis C anti bodies was first introduced by the blood bank in 1991, but it was not until two years later that a reliable test became available.

Consequently, at least 28 donors were not informed for years that they had tested positive for the virus, and the fear is that there may be others.

In 1997, the report from the Finlay Tribunal severely criticised the blood bank for failing to inform donors, all Munster residents, they had tested positive in earlier tests. That failure robbed them of valuable time in which to seek treatment earlier.

A dispute over the files of those donors led to internal strife within the IBTS which resulted in a High Court action and the departure of the previous chief executive with an appreciably valuable severance package.

The re-vamped IBTS insists that its priority now is to close this shameful chapter in its history, and to do so in a transparent and accountable fashion.

As, and from next week, a process will commence whereby the board will begin to notify those affected by the whole unfortunate situation.

They have still not indicated whether they will agree to the minister’s proposal, and their own suggestion about a judicial inquiry would seem to indicate reservations on their part.

It also means that both patient representative groups will have to give the question of a judicial inquiry careful consideration.

It might have hastened a final resolution of this controversy had the board agreed with the proposal from the Minister for Health and co-operate fully with the investigation he has proposed.

This route is acceptable to both Positive Action and Transfusion Positive, both of which bodies are dedicated to the welfare of the patients they represent and whose aim is to serve their best interests.

That investigation would be able the sooner to commence its deliberations should the agreement of the IBTS be forthcoming.

The welfare of the affected blood donors, who have been forced to endure an unwarranted delay to date, will not be improved by any long drawn out academic debate as to the merits or otherwise of a judicial investigation, such as the IBTS has proposed.

It is about time that this episode, in natural justice, was finally and conclusively brought to a close.