Denis Naughten
Ceist:173 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will publish the expert medical group report on the Trivax 3 in 1 vaccine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29514/03]
Written Answers. - Vaccination Programme.
Denis Naughten
Ceist:174 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children the last occasion on which his Department was in contact with a company (details supplied) with regard to the Trivax vaccine; and the information sought and response received. [29515/03]
Denis Naughten
Ceist:178 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children the discussions he has had with his British counterparts to obtain information surrounding the administration of the Trivax vaccine in the late 1960s and early 1970s in both the UK and Ireland; if he has sought and obtained a copy of the UK Department of Health commissioned report into potentially toxic batches of Trivax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29519/03]
Denis Naughten
Ceist:179 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of people who received batch 3741 of Trivax who have been traced in each health board area; the number who have not been contacted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29520/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 173, 174, 178 and 179 together.
I assume that the Deputy is referring to the expert medical group on whooping cough which was established by the then Minister for Health in 1977 to examine persons who, it was claimed, had been permanently damaged by whooping cough vaccination, to review the medical information available to them and to indicate whether, in its opinion, the damage was attributable to the vaccination. A copy of the report compiled on each child examined by this expert medical group, as well as a copy of the individual files compiled by the group, are retained by this Department. In cases where parents request a copy of the expert group file in respect of their child, a copy is provided to them; however, such reports cannot be published as they relate to the confidential health matters of individuals. The expert medical group did not make recommendations or produce a report other than the findings in each individual case examined.
I understand that the most recent correspondence related to this issue received by my Department from the company referred to by the Deputy is dated 11 June 2002; it consists of a follow up by the company in response to an earlier request from my Department for details on adverse events reported to the Irish Medicines Board.
I have not had direct discussions with my British counterparts on this issue and I am not aware of the UK report to which the Deputy refers.
In relation to the tracing of the individuals who received Trivax batch 3741, the following is the position concerning the four health boards concerned. The Southern Health Board and the Western Health Board confirmed this week that the position concerning this matter has not changed since their last reply in mid-2003.
The Southern Health Board undertook a comprehensive search of vaccine records which included the following measures: an examination of the electoral register; the board wrote to a number of GPs to request their assistance and sent lists relevant to their area; community welfare officers and public health nurses were consulted regarding the possibility of identifying recipients; and an examination of the board's intellectual disability register. This search identified that 106 people in the Southern Health Board region received vaccine from Trivax batch number 3741. Letters were sent to those for whom the board had current addresses, 37, which asked the individuals concerned to make contact with the relevant senior area medical officer. Some 29 of the 37 individuals concerned subsequently made contact with the board. In a further 18 cases, the individuals were no longer resident at the home address and the board considered it inappropriate for reasons of confidentiality to make contact with the home. I understand from the board that despite all of the above attempts, it was not possible to contact the remaining individuals. According to the Southern Health Board, none of the 29 individuals contacted had suffered any ill effects from the vaccine.
The Western Health Board confirmed this week that the situation in its region, as detailed in my previous reply, remains unchanged. The board identified three persons who received vaccine from Trivax batch number 3741. It clarified this by explaining that it was unable to trace any other records as the register represents vaccinations in the Galway area only and in most cases batch or lot numbers were not written in at the time the vaccination was given.
The Mid-Western Health Board and the North Western Health Board have not provided a response in the time allowed, however, the following is the most recent information provided by the health boards earlier this year. As previously outlined to the Deputy, the most recent correspondence from the Mid-Western Health Board states that the board's records indicate that 183 people in that region received vaccine from Trivax batch number 3741; of that group, the board was successful in obtaining current addresses for 104 individuals to whom it then wrote advising that it had received vaccine from that batch. Some 67 of the individuals contacted subsequently telephoned the board to get further details. As also stated in my previous response to the Deputy, an extensive trawl of records by the North Western Health Board identified three individuals in that region who received vaccine from Trivax batch number 3741.
I am satisfied that the four health boards concerned have done all that is reasonable within their power to contact the individuals concerned.
Denis Naughten
Ceist:175 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children the plans he has to introduce a compensation scheme for children who in all probability were damaged by the administration of vaccines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29516/03]
As detailed to the Deputy in response to his earlier parliamentary questions on this matter, I met two representatives of the Irish Vaccine Injury Campaign on 16 April 2002 and the matters raised by them were considered by my Department. A preliminary review of the schemes in place in a number of other countries has been undertaken. The matter will now be considered in the context of my Department's 2004 business plan.
Denis Naughten
Ceist:176 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Health and Children the number of children in each health board area who were vaccinated with out of date polio vaccines; the numbers to be revaccinated; the reason that the revaccination programme has not been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29517/03]
The operation of the primary childhood immunisation programme is a matter in the first instance for the individual health boards which enter into contracts with general practitioners for the delivery of the service.
As indicated in my previous responses to the Deputy, information received from health boards indicates that they have experienced difficulties in establishing the current position in relation to the number of children revaccinated, following the administration of oral polio vaccine, OPV, after the expiry date, as not all GPs have provided the required information.
As advised previously, my Department has written to the health board chief executive officers on this matter on numerous occasions since this issue arose and requested that any discrepancy between the number of children in their health board area where records indicate they received OPV more than one month after the expiry date and the number of children who were subsequently revaccinated be comprehensively explained.
As indicated in my letter of 22 January 2003 to the Deputy, health boards have indicated that the apparently high number of children yet to be revaccinated may not in fact be as high as current records show for the following reasons: GPs may have revaccinated children but have not advised the health boards; GPs may have established, on rechecking their records, that the vaccine was not in fact administered after the expiry date but may have failed to advise the relevant health board; parents may have decided not to have their children revaccinated; some children may have moved from the region; GPs may have decided against revaccination; and GPs may not have advised parents that vaccine was given more than one month after the expiry date and that revaccination is recommended.
The health boards have assured my Department that they have contacted all relevant GPs and advised them of the recommendation to revaccinate; however, they have advised that in all instances the clinical responsibility rests with the GPs in question. My Department contacted the health boards this week in relation to this matter and has been advised that the situation as detailed above still prevails.