Because of the extended nature of the speech of the Opposition spokesperson this morning, extra time is being allowed.
Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board: Motion (Resumed.)
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan(Limerick East), on Thursday, 20 March 1997:
That Dáil Éireann,
(a) notes the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) and acknowledges the gravity of the findings made against the Blood Transfusion Service Board, its servants and agents;
(b) accepts in full the recommendations of the Report;
(c) fully understands the extraordinary anguish and distress experienced by the victims and their families;
(d) notes and acknowledges the widespread sense of public outrage at the matters disclosed in the Report;
(e) supports the Minister for Health's request to the BTSB to make known its position on liability in all outstanding cases forthwith, in the light of the findings in the Report;
(f) supports the Government's intention to reappraise and amend the Scheme of Compensation and its Terms of Reference, including the question of whether the Tribunal should be established on a statutory basis in the light of the Report, the reappraisal to take place following consultation with representatives of the victims and with the Chair of the Compensation Tribunal, and consideration of any necessary legal advice;
(g) notes the Government's decision that the benefits of any adjustment to the Compensation Scheme will be made available to all victims, including in particular cases which have already been determined by the Tribunal, or which will be determined between now and the date any adjustments are put in place, and
(h) notes that the Government will not seek to resile from or repudiate any of the findings of fact in the Tribunal Report in any proceedings either in Court or before the Compensation Tribunal.
Debate resumed on amendment No.1.
To delete all words after "Board (BTSB)" and insert the following:
"condemns the Minister for Health for failing, yet again, to make the victims a first priority, following the publication of the report;
condemns the political handling of the scandal by Ministers Howlin and Noonan;
condemns the refusal by Minister Noonan at the time of the establishment of the Judicial Inquiry to allow an investigation into how the State and State agencies acted when legal proceedings were instituted by the late Mrs. McCole;
calls on the Government to give an unreserved apology to all victims of the Hepatitis C scandal;
calls on the Government to make a full admission of liability to persons infected with Hepatitis C through the wrongdoing of the State and State agencies; and
calls on the Government to amend the terms of reference of thead hoc Compensation Tribunal to provide for
(a) awards of aggravated and/or exemplary damages;
(b) a right of appeal to the High Court; and
(c) a procedure whereby victims (including victims since deceased) who have accepted awards from the State can apply for aggravated and/or exemplary damages in addition to sums already awarded to them."
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Minister proposes to speak for half an hour and his colleague will speak for ten minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Blood Transfusion Service Board contains the truth about the worst scandal in the history of the State in terms of our health service. It documents in detail, with chilling clarity, the damage that has been done to the lives of many hundreds of our citizens by the negligent actions of senior people with responsibility for the safety of the blood supply from 1970 to the early 1990s. It will serve as a permanent reminder of the terrible harm which can be done when a vital component of the health services loses sight of the fundamental objective of preserving and enhancing human health. Such is the extent of the tragedy that it has touched almost every community. Since the facts of the tragedy first emerged most of us have witnessed the personal and deep harm visited by the infection of anti-D on many women and their families.
As Minister for Health for the nine month period from February to November 1994, following revelation of the infection of anti-D, I had the privilege of meeting many of the women who were infected both individually and, from May of that year, through their representative organisation, Positive Action. I was struck then — I still am — by the magnanimity and lack of bitterness that exists among those women. All they wanted were answers and assurances that nothing like this would happen again.
We have arrived at the end of a long process of examination begun by the expert group which I, as Minister, set up on 4 March 1994, and now completed by the publication of the report of the tribunal of inquiry. The reports of the expert group and the tribunal have provided the answers to the questions which were posed. Many of the actions which have been identified as central to the anti-D infection are, quite frankly, hard to understand.
On the day the report of the tribunal was published, the Government referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. His decision on the contents of the report is a matter exclusively for himself and his statutory independent role.
In relation to the role of the Department of Health in 1994 and myself as Minister of the day, the report is both balanced and fair. A number of criticisms have been levelled at my handling of this crisis both during the tribunal proceedings and in the media over recent months. These relate to the setting up of an expert group rather than a tribunal of investigation to investigate the infection of anti-D in the first instance; the choice of the BTSB as the agency best suited to carry out the screening programme; and the recall of the anti-D product and what information was given regarding the 1989 infection.
Following four hours of evidence, cross-examination by five senior counsel and a detailed discussion of all the issues by Mr. Justice Finlay in his report, the handling of the crisis by the Department of Health and myself, as Minister of the day, have been found to be deficient on three specific points. These relate to the recall of the product, the advice of the group of hepatologists to the BTSB regarding referral criteria and the delay in putting independent counselling in position. While I accept these are valid criticisms, I would like to make a number of points.
Regarding the recall of the product, the Department of Health was informed on 17 February 1994 by the BTSB that it had commenced a recall of anti-D by telephone. This was followed up by letters which confirmed the product was withdrawn and that unused stocks should be returned. This recall procedure compares to similar procedures in other countries. Physical recall is not, to my knowledge, part of the recall procedure in any country. I was appalled when I heard the recall had been incomplete and, while none of the women who were administered the product were infected, it is not a matter which I take lightly. I must make it clear that the recall was one of a number of decisions which I had to make at the time. I was informed it was being done. There is no excuse for it not having been done.
The criticism of the Department and myself regarding the advice of the hepatologists relates to a difference of opinion at a medical and scientific level. The medical advice of my Department and the BTSB differed from that of the group of hepatologists on the issue of at what stage women should be referred for liver biopsy and further tests. It is not an issue on which I personally adjudicated; clearly, I had no expertise to make that medical decision. However, as Minister of the day, I accept the criticism.
The third issue related to the provision of independent counselling. On 19 May 1994 Positive Action informed the Department that some of its members were unhappy with the counselling service which was being provided by the BTSB and requested that an independent service be made available. From the previous March an independent counselling service had been provided in Cork by the Southern Health Board, and from that May an independent counselling service was provided in Dublin through the Well Woman Centre. Finding suitable counsellors was a matter of ongoing difficulty, both for the BTSB and other agencies involved in providing the service. However, I accept there was a delay of some months before such independent services became widely available throughout the country.
These are the criticisms levelled at me as the Minister of the day and the Department by the report of the tribunal of inquiry which is before the House. They relate to three matters which could, and should, have been done better. It is a matter of public record, both in the report of the tribunal and that of the expert group, that none of these delays or shortcomings resulted in a single person being infected by hepatitis C. It is a matter of public record that from the day the Department and I were made aware of the crisis no person was infected with hepatitis C through the anti-D product.
It is little comfort to me that the report of the tribunal has endorsed my actions as Minister at the time. Vindication is not something for which I waited expectantly the day the report was forwarded to the Government. This was, simply put, the most difficult issue I have had to deal with in my political career to date. I dealt with this issue from mid-February to the end of November 1994. During that period, the senior Department officials handling the issue did little else. Even before this tribunal sat and heard the many weeks of evidence, I was certain everyone associated with this issue at senior level had given it 100 per cent. They did their best, as did I. I do not believe any Minister or set of officials, faced with the rapidly changing circumstances and the poor state of scientific knowledge of the disease, could have handled in a perfect manner every aspect of the crisis as it unfolded.
The report of the tribunal sets out in chapter 13 the background against which my officials and I were obliged to work. The report states:
They were dealing with what had been properly described by some of the witnesses as the most devastating calamity of a public health nature which had occurred since the foundation of the State. They were also dealing with a particular form of calamity, namely a major infection of a nationally distributed blood product of which not only had there been no previous experience in Ireland and, therefore, no pattern of conduct or reaction created in Ireland but which had not been experienced in any other European country either.
It was against this background and in this context that this major national crisis unfolded and a series of actions took place at a number of different levels. It is important to put on the record how well most of the things we were required to do were done. It is important to do so for all those who worked day and night dealing with this crisis through the months which followed.
The report of the tribunal lists at least 14 separate actions which were found to have been correct. These include having the BTSB carry out the national screening programme, informing the general practitioners at the same time the screening programme was announced and the setting up of an expert group. All of these actions have met with criticism in recent months.
The report set out seven headings under which my actions and those of the Department of Health were to be judged. These headings included ensuring no further infection could have possibly occurred; ensuring that an anti-D product free from infection replaced the existing one and was immediately available; finding out who was already infected; maintaining, as far as possible, confidence in the BTSB and the blood supply; arranging treatment, counselling and help for the victims of the infection; finding out what had happened to cause the infection of the anti-D and dealing with the problems within the BTSB and its organisations. A series of important actions, many of which were uncontroversial, and which, therefore, did not feature in the discussions of the tribunal, were undertaken under each of these headings. Only three specific actions attracted criticisms after the most thorough evaluation of every aspect of our actions of the time.
Since the publication of the report of the tribunal, a number of commentators and some Members of this House have attempted to second guess the tribunal's findings and report. In a particularly — but characteristically nasty —contribution, Deputy Cowen went much further. He set himself up as his own personal tribunal, reweighed the evidence and came to his own set of partisan, biased and untrue conclusions. I propose to deal with the charges I can disentangle from his unique political bile.
Deputy Cowen charges that I misled the Cabinet, the Dáil and the victims of this awful tragedy. On 17 February 1994, when the infection of the anti-D product was brought to the attention of the Department of Health and to me as Minister, there was definite evidence of infection for the year 1977. There was no firm evidence of infection for any other year. Over that weekend, during discussion with officials in my Department at the time and the BTSB, it emerged the board had suspicions about product made from donations in 1989. Tests were being undertaken but no firm evidence was available. As a result of that information, a decision was made that every woman who had received anti-D since its introduction up to the date of withdrawal of the product should be tested.
Neither my officials nor I had any confidence in the anti-D product in its entirety and we did not believe we could have confidence that the product was safe in any other year. The suspicion of an infection related to a 1989 donation reinforced my opinion that we could have been dealing with any number of separate incidents of infection.
The screening campaign and the public announcement related to it were specifically designed to ensure that all women who had received anti-D were screened, and the vast majority were. By 9 March 1994, approximately two weeks after the screening process began, almost 31,000 women had been tested by the BTSB. This figure rose to 52,000 by May of that year and by 17 January 1995, it had reached a figure of 56,000. It is estimated that up to 60,000 could have potentially been infected.
All the public statements which I made at the time as Minister, both inside and outside this House, emphasised that every woman who had received the product should come forward for testing. There was an understandable focus on women who received anti-D in the 1977 period, and the figures which emerge from the screening programme bore out the correctness of that approach. The number of women infected in that period was greater by a factor of up to ten for any other period. The emphasis was correct.
However, I made it clear at the outset that all anti-D was potentially infected and all the media campaigns reinforced that message. I invite people to revisit the campaigns of the time. There is no mention of any specific year in the advertisements that were placed in every newspaper. They call on all women who received anti-D to come forward for testing.
According to the Official Report, 22 February 1994, Vol. 439, col. 300 and col. 301, I told the Dáil:
When this matter was brought to my attention, my immediate concerns were: (i) the protection of all future recipients of anti-D immunoglobulin and (ii) the identification of any risk, however small, for any mothers who received the anti-D immunoglobulin in the past. ... Because we cannot be sure that the problem is confined to 1977, the Blood Transfusion Service Board is advising any woman who received anti-D to be tested.
In an aide memoire to Government on 9 March 1994, I set out the state of knowledge of the BTSB as it was given to me on that day regarding the initial screening results. It was thought at that time, a matter of two weeks into the screening, that there was a low prevalence of antibody positive tests among women who received anti-D in years other than 1977. I stated in the aide memoire that “the board maintains that, thus far, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that women from years other than '77 have the antibodies through the administration of anti-D”. It was only when a large number of women had come forward for testing and those tests were statistically analysed that a group of women who had been infected in the 1991 period from the 1989 donor emerged. I kept my Government colleagues apprised of the progress of the screening programme throughout my period as Minister.
The second charge levelled at me by Deputy Cowen is that I left the State response in the hands of those who caused it. Other than the issue I have already dealt with, the following actions were taken: There was a major public announcement and press conference by the BTSB on Monday, 21 February 1994, the first working day after I was told and after we had worked through the weekend to put the screening process in place. A major media campaign in national and local newspapers was immediately initiated, calling on all women who had received anti-D to be screened for hepatitis C and an information pack was sent to all GPs so that they too would be fully briefed.
A national screening programme of unprecedented scale was put in place. Is Deputy Cowen or anybody suggesting that the BTSB was not the most suitable body to undertake this programme? No expert or administrator has so far suggested that it was not the appropriate body and the tribunal has independently decided on this matter. The BTSB had received anti-D and of course it was the most efficient body to undertake the screening.
The contaminated anti-D produce was replaced by a virally inactivated product from Canada. Again, my handling of this replacement was judged to have been the correct course of action. For persons who were diagnosed positive for hepatitis C under the screening programme, acute hospital services were negotiated and put in place in special units in six designated hospitals, in Beaumont, the Mater, St. Vincent's and St. James's hospitals in Dublin and in Cork University Hospital and University College Hospital, Galway. Again, the tribunal found that the services provided were adequate and appropriate.
Ex gratia payments were made available from the beginning of the screening programme for women in financial need. A total of 563 women availed of these and the total sum disbursed amounted to £665,000. The tribunal again found these arrangements to be adequate.
Deputy Cowen made political charges which were untrue. He stated that eight people were contaminated subsequent to the withdrawal of the product in February 1994. In fact, no woman was infected by anti-D subsequent to my being informed of the problem in that month. That is an unprecedented mistake for the Deputy to have made in this House.
What about the blood products?
Deputy Cowen charges me with establishing an information system from the beginning of the crisis which focused on 1977 batches of anti-D. I invite the House to sample the advertisements which were carried in all the national and local newspapers at the time. They make no mention of 1977 but called on all women who had received anti-D to be screened. He charged me with having a lack of concern for the affected women. Ms Pollard, a representative of Positive Action, in an interview on RTE on 5 January 1995 said Positive Action was delighted, that Deputy Howlin when he was Minister for Health treated them very sympathetically and that they were delighted Deputy Noonan had taken it on so speedily.
Deputy Cowen complained that I did not sack anybody in the BTSB. I set up an expert group to get at the full truth. Should I have sacked people first and then set up the investigation? This tragedy began more than 20 years ago, but it has only come to light in our time. I have held ministerial office for more than four years. In each issue that has arisen or confronted me over that period I have always been open and direct, and I believe that will be attested by Members on both sides of this House. Few, if any, officeholders in this country's history have faced and been required to deal with such a tragedy. Few, if any, officeholders subsequent to dealing with such a tragedy have had such a thorough, detailed, line by line, hour by hour examination of his or her stewardship. The fair and impartial result of that scrutiny is there for all to see — all those who are not blinded by political prejudice. I did not do everything right, no human being ever will, but by independent judgment and analysis, the findings of which are before this House, I and those around me at the time got most of our decisions right.
I do not give tuppence for political vindication. In the shadow of such terrible suffering, the political posturing we witnessed this morning is shallow and empty. I leave it to others to examine my total record and for them to decide then who they would like to have in charge in times of crisis. Of much greater moment and concern is the need to ensure in so far as human beings can, and we are all mortal, that no such tragedy will ever again be visited upon our people and that those who are suffering and will continue to suffer will get the best possible support this State can provide.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate now that the tribunal of inquiry has finished its work and completed its report. I welcome the Government's decision last night to award additional damages to victims of the hepatitis C scandal. The funding will not repair the damage that has been done, but the award is a recognition of the great anguish and the distress experienced by victims and their families. In the words of the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Thomas Finlay, the tribunal was a deeply distressing and a very emotive experience. No amount of money or awards can repair the damage caused by the distribution and use of infected blood products, but we must begin by acknowledging the level of pain in the community as a result of this affair. The Labour Party and the Government fully accept the recommendations and conclusions of the tribunal of inquiry into the BTSB. We must learn from this experience and ensure it is never allowed to happen again.
Our health service is a crucial part of our welfare service and the Government must ensure that the public can confidently put their faith in such a vital social service. In the past two days comments were made by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Harney, which have the potential to undermine public confidence in the blood supply. While frustration and anger is a natural reaction to the recent mistakes at the BTSB, we in this House have a broader duty to react in an appropriate manner. People who do not have medical expertise should not begin to give advice to people who may face life threatening situations. I was very ill for a year and a half and faced theatre on five occasions. This matter had come to light at the time and I was very frightened, but I had confidence in the medical people who looked after me and I did not care what people who did not have a medical qualification said. The only effect their comments had was to frighten me. I send a message from this House this evening to those who are waiting to go into theatre that we must have confidence in the blood patients will be given this evening, tomorrow or the day after, otherwise people like myself who faced that ordeal will not have confidence that they will get better.
The security and integrity of the blood supply is of primary importance to our health system. Any scaremongering or loose talk serves only to cause further unnecessary panic and anxiety to those who are already sick. As Senator Henry rightly pointed out during the Order of Business in the Seanad yesterday, the availability of blood products and transfusions has benefited enormously the lives of many women. We must ensure they continue to do so and that women can avail of these services without fear.
The report only serves to further compound the sense of regret about this affair. Great hurt and suffering has been caused to many women and their families. As my party leader, Deputy Spring, said at the Labour Party regional conference in Portlaoise last October before the work of the tribunal began, we are all damaged by our inability to say we are sorry. He said that of course there are legal constraints, but there are also human imperatives. He also said we are a community, each dependent on the other. He further said that as a community we have seen hurt and suffering where it should not exist. He added that we should be able to express regret for that in a human way. I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments expressed on that occasion. All Members must acknowledge the pain and suffering caused as a result of this affair. The Government's decision to amend the scheme of compensation and its terms of reference are sound. It is only right that those who have already settled their claims at the tribunal should be entitled to have their cases reopened. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to say that the tribunal should have been put on a statutory footing from the outset. Everything is wonderful in hindsight, but we are all human beings.
The Government established the Finlay tribunal and its readiness to accept the findings in full is in stark contrast with how the Fianna Fáil Party handled the beef tribunal report. This debate should be marked by humility on all sides of the House. One of the most interesting articles I read on this issue was in this morning's Irish Independent. That article makes clear that partial responsibility for this problem lies with almost every party in this House. It notes that between 1975 and 1994, the period over which the Finlay report adjudicates, insufficient resources were given to the National Drugs Advisory Board to supervise the activities of the BTSB. He further adjudicates that this failure is one of the many contributory factors to the current position.
The articles notes that my party has apologised for its role in this aspect of the crisis. My party leader, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, made that clear last October and his comments were reiterated this week by party spokespersons. What is the position of the current Opposition parties which, as today's article adequately illustrated, contributed to the development of the problem in the first place? The motion acknowledges the hurt caused by the Government's action to all the families involved. Will Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats do the same? For example, will the Progressive Democrats acknowledge the danger of undermining vital State agencies through underfunding?
I welcome the Government's readiness to accept the report in full, particularly during the further court proceedings at the tribunal itself. One aspect is apparent; there were too many legal niceties during this crisis. However, it is also clear that the Opposition wants it two ways. It does not like the fact that the report does not scapegoat either former Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin, or current Minister, Deputy Noonan. It is seeking to reserve the right to second guess the report for its own political purposes. That will not wash.
My party colleague, Deputy Howlin, was widely acknowledged as one of the best Ministers for Health in the history of the State. Despite all the innuendo and supposition in which the Opposition has engaged about his role in this affair, the tribunal found that he acted in an appropriate fashion in all but three areas. However, Deputy Howlin has accepted the validity of these criticisms. He, as much as anybody else, regrets what happened in this affair. I would much rather have Deputy Howlin or Deputy Noonan, who have proved themselves capable and caring Ministers for Health, dealing with this type of problem than many Opposition Members.
Mr. Justice Finlay should be congratulated on producing a comprehensive and balanced report in a reasonable time span. Our job as legislators now is to put matters right and ensure that events such as those described in the report never happen again. The Government said it accepts the findings and recommendations of the tribunal report. The Department of Health will make resources available to put in place the necessary systems and procedures to ensure a similar scandal never happens again. I welcome the decision that a new site and building equipment for a Dublin unit of the BTSB, which will be located near a teaching hospital, will be undertaken. The Government will establish a blood services consumer council which will be regularly informed about relevant matters concerning the blood supply. The council will comprise representatives of people who expect to be recipients of blood products.
I also welcome the Government's decision to put in place standard procedures for the recall of unsafe products and procedures which will allow the BTSB to replace the entire stock of blood product should the supply become defective. This work will now begin and I am confident the Government will put the necessary reforms in place immediately so we can learn from this tragic episode in Ireland's medical history.
I sympathise with all the women who suffered as a result of this issue and particularly with the family of the late Mrs. Brigid McCole. I pay tribute to the women who fought the campaign on this matter. I was very ill at the time and I was unable to participate. However, I put my trust in medical people and I hope people who are sick in the future will have faith in blood products and medical personnel.
I support the amendment to the motion moved by my party's health spokesperson, Deputy Cowen. I recognise the limitations of the report, given its terms of reference, particularly in relation to question No. 5 of the McCole family, liability for the hepatitis C issue and political accountability.
Victims rather than politicians should have been given priority. An admission of liability should have been forthcoming when it was obvious that the BTSB was in the wrong. The terms of reference of the ad hoc compensation tribunal should be changed in view of the recent findings of the judicial tribunal to allow for the payment of aggravated or exemplary damages. People who already accepted settlements should be entitled to further consideration with regard to such damages.
I am glad the Government, even at this late stage, has acceded to aggravated damages, although this aspect is clouded in equivocal legal terminology. It worries me that it is not straightforward. It is very equivocal and there is no mention of appeals. This must be clarified because this is not a time for equivocation with regard to procedure. The Government should not be allowed to get off the hook with semantics.
It is surprising the Government cannot come clean on this issue because there is no such equivocation when Ministers are lauding themselves for their great work on this issue. However, my objective is not to castigate Ministers or former Ministers but to ensure the Government acknowledges that a wrong was done by the Blood Transfusion Service Board, the National Drugs Advisory Board, the Department of Health, its advisers and consequently the Minister in loco when the full implications of this episode became known and the worst public health scandal in the history of this country came to light. Apologies to the victims of hepatitis C and adequate compensation, which includes aggravated and exemplary damages as the courts deem proper, should be made to those affected by the virus.
The report of the tribunal of inquiry highlights many issues which were not touched on in the report of the expert group. This is not surprising in view of the terms of reference of that group. There was obviously a certain amount of economy of information to the group and this is why Fianna Fáil repeatedly requested a tribunal of inquiry. We were fully justified in our search for the full truth on this issue as were Positive Action, Transfusion Positive, haemophiliacs and people who received transplants. We were right to persist in our quest to get to the bottom of this issue and secure the truth. The demands for a tribunal of inquiry were justified.
The report of the tribunal of inquiry is wide ranging and contains 17 chapters, covering aspects such as how hepatitis C came into this country and how it first originated. Ireland prided itself on its voluntary blood transfusion service. We thought we had one of the best services in the world. It is a small country and the people who donated blood were generally not infected with any known disease at that time. We were happy that the product was good until this problem arose. Then we were confronted with the problem of hepatitis C in regard to the anti-D product and transfusions, resulting in a total mess. Unfortunately, the Blood Transfusion Service Board refused to recognise the information before their eyes.
The consequences of these infections are graphically illustrated in the case histories of those who presented at the Tribunal of Inquiry into the BTSB. We have heard that many women did not know why they were in bad health, suffered from loss of energy, had many depressive symptoms, arthritis or other aches or pains. Neither could their doctors diagnose the cause in many cases because, initially, the public generally had not been advised of the risks posed by hepatitis C. Hepatologists have clearly described the consequences for those patients who have been infected with hepatitis C, particularly those who will need liver transplants.
We are confronted not alone by the infection itself but its effect on patients. Some manifest thyroid or hyper-thyroid problems, others have aches and pains and some suffer fulminant or chronic liver failure. A whole gamut of symptoms can affect anyone with hepatitis C. Dr. Hegarty has graphically demonstrated the percentage of those who may progress from fulminant hepatitis to chronic hepatitis and those who may not manifest grave symptoms for some ten or 15 years. We have not heard the last of hepatitis C.
Then there is the problem of people with co-infection, those who may have HIV who are not amenable to the present treatment which may exacerbate their condition. There are also implications for those who may have had a renal transplant; if they have co-existent hepatitis C they too will not be amenable to the present treatment for hepatitis C. That treatment is not great. Only about 30 per cent of patients respond. The treatment itself is very severe and produces side effects such as aches and pains, dryness of mouth, eyes and other symptoms, sometimes even leading to other infections at injection sites and so on. There are many problems associated with this overall issue.
Debate adjourned.