Vol. 431 No. 8
2 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Health if he will order the immediate release of files at present in the possession of health boards in respect of alleged vaccine damaged children; and the steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that all appropriate information is made available.
3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Health if, in view of a recent Supreme Court judgment, he will consider the establishment by the Government of a trust fund to benefit people who, it is claimed, have been brain damaged by the whooping cough vaccine; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the High Court decision to award £2.75 million to Mrs. Margaret Best as a result of the effect of the whooping cough vaccine on her son, he intends to make a statement in relation to the vaccination scheme; if in view of the difficulties of families who believe they have experienced similar damage as a result of the vaccine, he intends to provide them with the information they are seeking; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
62 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Health the action, if any, which has been taken in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Galway, a victim of a three-in-one vaccination, since the most recent meeting regarding the case between him and the head of the Community Care Section in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3, 28 and 62 together.
Previous experience has shown that, following adverse publicity about whooping cough vaccine, the number of children being vaccinated falls. This is regrettable. Pertussis, or whooping cough, is a severe and highly infectious disease which can have serious short and long term consequences for children who are affected by it. Whooping cough vaccine has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing and reducing the severity of this disease in children and has significantly reduced illness and death from the disease over many years. Medical opinion, therefore, strongly supports the widest possible uptake of the whooping cough vaccine. As with all vaccines doctors take particular care in administering it and guidelines and recommendations have been issued to doctors in this regard over many years. Medical specialists in a number of major western countries have now decided that there is no conclusive proof of the whooping cough vaccine causing brain damage.
In 1975, the question of possible brain damage from whooping cough vaccination became an issue in the United Kingdom and the United States. As in the USA and the UK a number of persons in Ireland whose children received the vaccine in the late sixties and early seventies and who were brain damaged came together at that time to form the Irish Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children. Their objectives were to get compensation for their children and to ensure that the vaccination programme was "made safer" by screening children who had contra-indications to the vaccine.
As a result of lobbying by the association, an expert medical group was established by the Minister for Health in November 1977, with the following terms of reference:
To examine persons who, it is claimed, have been permanently damaged by whooping cough vaccination, review the medical information available in relation to them and indicate whether, in their opinion, the damage is attributable to the vaccination.
The membership of the expert medical group was as follows: Prof. O'Donnell, Chief Medical Officer in Dublin, Dr. Tempany, a paediatrician in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, and Dr. Murphy, a neurologist in St. Laurence's and Jervis Street Hospitals, Dublin.
The expert group examined a total of 93 persons. Of the 93 cases, the group found there was a reasonable probability that the vaccine was responsible for damage in 16 of the cases. Of these cases at least two were considered borderline and the group gave them the benefit of the doubt.
I should add the expert group had completed its work prior to the publication of subsequent studies which concluded that the vaccine did not cause long term neurological damage.
In September 1982 on offer of an exgratia payment of £10,000 was made in each of the 14 cases from the initial group of 54 where the expert medical group has found in favour of the children. This offer was also made on 30 March 1984 to the parents of two further persons considered to be damaged by the vaccine, from the second group of 39. In its covering letter the Department stated that it did not accept any liability on the part of the State or any public authority in respect of the child's disability. A condition of acceptance of the payment was that persons could not take any action against the State.
Previous Ministers for Health have held the view that information which was made available to the expert group was confidential to that group and could not be made available to parents. In the light of the outcome of the Best case, I have decided to release the files if requested to do so by representatives of the people involved. I have also indicated to the Irish Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children that I will be happy to meet them.
I appreciate the Minister's reply. I agree with him in regard to the overwhelming evidence of success of the whooping cough vaccine. Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that his Department has been somewhat tardy in the release of information in this regard? Will he confirm that statements by officials of his Department and health board officials to the effect that record numbers and batch numbers of vaccines were not kept and that batch numbers were destroyed in a fire in an Eastern Health Board office some time ago are incorrect? I hope that for the first time in 20 years here will be an upfront approach by the Department of Health in this matter to ensure that parents of children who have been allegedly brain damaged as a result of the vaccine will have immediate and full access to departmental records without need to apply to the courts, a process which involves considerable expense.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. I understand the difficulty experienced by my predecessors in relation to this matter. It was understood originally that these files would be available for the information of the expert group and the Department of Health. When I became aware that the files existed in the Department I felt they should be released to the parents involved. It was necessary to carry out consultations with the doctors involved in the original analysis of the files. I am of the opinion that the balance of goods lies in favour of giving open access to these files to the families of the children involved and I assure the Deputy and the House that that will be done without access to the courts.
Will the Minister not agree that in the light of the outcome of the Best case and international research it is accepted by many people that the drug, even if not negligently given, as happened in the Best case, involves an inherent risk to a small number of children? Would the Minister not agree that this is stated in the insert with the vaccine and that in rare cases there is a risk to children? I accept that in the interests of the common good there should be widespread availability of the vaccine in the community and that confidence in the vaccine should be maintained. Would the Minister not agree that there is a case to be made for the setting up of a trust fund for the small number of families who have proof that their children were damaged by the vaccine? Perhaps the Minister will recall the case he made for the setting up of the haemophiliac fund where a moral obligation was placed on the State to compensate people who were damaged as a result of receiving a service from the State.
There is a fundamental difference between the two cases mentioned by the Deputy. Clearly infection was caused by contaminated blood products in relation to haemophilia and there was a moral responsibility on the State in this regard. I have sought evidence in relation to the whooping cough vaccine. This evidence is summarised in an article that appeared in one of yesterday's newspapers written by Doctor John O'Riordan which states:
Where the normal dose of vaccine is given there is still no firm proof of whooping cough vaccine causing brain damage. Paediatricians in Britain, Canada and the United States have all reached that conclusion independently.
We are still providing the three-in-one vaccination which is a very important part of the vaccination process. It is very important that parents have no fears in relation to the giving of this vaccine. The procedure is carefully monitored and those children with contra-indicators are identified in advance. We want to encourage the greatest possible use of this vaccine.
In relation to the question of a trust fund, the Best case has resulted in the establishment of certain legal procedures. I have indicated that I am willing to meet the parents involved and to ensure they have access to all information at my disposal. That is the path that would be best followed immediately. No doubt these people are receiving independent legal advice. The matter of a trust fund is not one for consideration at present.
How does the Minister explain the setting up of trust funds and payment schemes in England and Germany on a no fault basis to serve the needs of a finite number of people? We are talking here about a finite number. As the Minister said, procedures for the giving of the vaccine have improved, the criteria are much more strict and there is greater knowledge in this regard. Would the Minister not accept that we have a moral obligation to compensate the finite number of people who have been damaged?
I asked for brevity.
It would be unfair of the Minister and the State to expect those families to haul themselves through the courts——
The Deputy should obey the Chair, especially as the time for disposing of priority questions is limited.
I would ask the Minsiter to respond to my question.
New evidence is coming to light all the time. It is my information that the compensation funds mentioned by the Deputy are in the process of being wound down as a result of the availability of new evidence. I have not a closed mind on the issue but there are other avenues open to the parents involved. They have their own independent advice and so do not need advice from me in the matter. The issue of a trust fund is not one for consideration at present.
Accepting what the Minister has said about new evidence coming to light, will he not accept that the least he might do is provide basic legal aid for the 30 or 40 people involved? As well as making available the files will he ensure that the legal process undertaken by them is minimised in terms of the expense involved?
Obviously the provision of legal aid is not a matter for me or my Department. When I meet the parents concerned I will address that matter. I want to be as helpful as possible to these people.
