Noonan defends actions in hepatitis crisis

THE Minister for Health, Mr Noonan, angrily defended his actions yesterday in handling the fallout from the hepatitis C controversy…

THE Minister for Health, Mr Noonan, angrily defended his actions yesterday in handling the fallout from the hepatitis C controversy. Appearing before the tribunal of inquiry yesterday, the Minister rejected a suggestion that he had failed in his handling of the crisis.

"What I did right far outweighs what I did wrong," Mr Noonan said during cross-examination by Mr John Rogers SC, for the McCole family and Positive

Action. "I resent you talking about the failure of the Minister for Health."

Much of Mr Noonan's evidence centred on whether the discovery of a document at the Blood Transfusion Service Board in February 1996, in preparation for the Brigid McCole court case meant that new information had been revealed. The file contained information about Patient X being diagnosed with infective hepatitis in 1976.

READ MORE

Mr Noonan insisted the information about infective hepatitis had been known to the Department since shortly after the contamination scandal broke in February 1994.

He was "in no doubt" that the Expert Group, chaired by Dr Miriam Hederman O'Brien, would have been aware it was dealing with a case of infective hepatitis, although the report only refers to Patient X as having jaundice.

He stood over the accuracy of statements made to the Dail by the Minister of State for Health, Mr Brian O'Shea, on two occasions last year about this issue. "What was new was a new file," he said.

The Minister said that was his position when the matter became `controversial last year "and it is still my state of mind" - though he added "I may be wrong".

Questioned about the licensing of the anti-D immunoglobulin, the Minister said he was "extremely surprised" at the methods, used by his Department.

Mr Noonan also said he was "not aware" of what consideration the Expert Group had given the 1932 Therapeutic Substances Act, which covered the licensing of anti-D. Licensing was only mentioned in the appendices of the report, he said.

He recalled this matter being mentioned to him by a senior Department official "as a detail, though not significant".

At that time he was more concerned about the victims and the need to sustain public confidence in the blood supply.