Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1989

Vol. 122 No. 3

HIV-Infected Haemophiliacs: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Health to recognise the special problems of the haemophiliacs infected with AIDS and HIV positive through transfusions of contaminated blood, and to set up a trust fund to help meet the basic needs of themselves and their families,
—(Senator Doyle.)

The joint motions before the House are motions I consider important as they are highlighting the problems of AIDS and HIV positive responses in people. We cannot, in general, suggest that AIDS does not exist, that people do not become HIV positive for some reason. Senator Bulbulia brought the matter into a county perspective when she suggested that she talked to people in Waterford who were haemophliacs.

No, I referred to the general public with whom I discussed the fact that we were having a debate in the Seanad.

I have been in very close contact with haemophiliacs over a long number of years. It is a hereditary disease. Ten years ago I talked to a father who had lost two children and I felt very sympathetic towards that family. Words that are used today in terms of AIDS were words that I could have used at the time.

The families suffering from haemophilia felt they were being shunned by society, that they could not become normal members of society.

Every time they got a blood transfusion they feared, to use their own words, that "the hand grenade would go off". I do not think the words used today are particularly helpful to haemophiliacs or to the small number of people who develop AIDS or become HIV positive because they are haemophiliacs: I refer to words such as "prejudice", "stigma", "hostile", "harsh" and "unfeeling". These are not words I would like to have used in this situation. The Minister and the Government are not harsh and unfeeling. They know exactly that there is a problem there. It is not one that was created by the Government. It is not one that was created by the drug companies but I would suggest that the drug companies who have delivered contaminated blood may be at fault. The haemophiliacs who have contracted AIDS should take a case against the drug companies because they have created more problems in so-called health care than they have alleviated.

Decisions were not forced on politicians when it was decided by the Blood Transfusion Board in 1984-85 that blood should be treated. I have O negative blood type and it could be a problem if I married somebody who had the same blood type. Many parents who are both O negative had blue babies, but I do not think anybody could take an action in such a case.

Reference was made of countries which are allowing compensation and Spain was mentioned. Financial compensation is not provided in cases where haemophiliacs become infected with HIV positive as a result of a blood transfusion. Nevertheless, as the use of blood products is subject to specific regulations, the person infected can seek financial compensation through the judicial system. That is an area that should be looked at.

The Government are totally in sympathy with anybody who is infected with AIDS or who becomes HIV positive. It does not make any difference where the virus comes from: the Government are not unhelpful and are not hostile. There is no government scheme in France, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg or Portugal. West Germany has got a drug-related compensation scheme but it is drug-related and it is not specific to any group of people. One of the problems is whether financial compensation will change the situation. Financial compensation should not be an issue here. We should ensure that adequate research goes into the development of problems related to AIDS and HIV and money should go to the Haemophilia Sociaty. The Government are right here. Somebody said that £50,000 is a pittance; it is £50,000 for research into the haemophilia problem. Education through this type of aid is very necessary. The Government are not, as has been said, hostile to AIDS sufferers. They are not hostile to haemophiliacs.

Who said that?

Hostile in education was mentioned in the debate. The Government are doing everything possible to help those who have AIDS, whether they be haemophiliacs or otherwise. The motion gives an opportunity to air the concern that is felt by those who are haemophiliacs and those who are not. The Government made no bones about allowing time to debate this matter. I suggest that some of the words that have been used here are not particularly helpful in the debate. I, and the other members of my group, will continue to fight for everybody who has a disorder of any nature. We will fight with the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance to ensure that those who have haemophilia are helped and who have AIDS are helped.

The motion gives an opportunity to air the points of view that are being expressed throughout the country. For that reason I welcome it but I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the proposer and seconder about the harsh, unfeeling, unhelpful and hostile attitude of the Minister. The Minister is helpful and is anything but hostile.

I understand Senator Murphy is sharing his time with Senator Ferris.

Yes, I would be glad if Senator Ferris in whose name the co-motion stands could take up the rest of my allotted time. I will not be very long. It seems to me that Senators Doyle and Bulbulia have put the case extremely well. There is little for me to add. I have no particular axe to grind but it seems to me that the case is self-evident for special treatment. I have received the literature of the Irish Haemophilia Society but I have not been in contact with them. I totally support their case and I want to go on the record for that reason.

From the very beginning of the whole debate about AIDS, I remember saying in this House that one of the awful things was that people were invoking as an explanation for this new plague in mankind that it was God's curse on mankind for its perversion, deviations, etc. Obviously this was total superstition since in any case it was refuted by the fact that, quite literally, the innocent babes unborn were victims of this awful plague and even worse, the adult and equally innocent haemophiliacs were also victims. Surely that, in itself, refuted the ignorant and superstitious notion that God is a kind of sinister gentleman who awaits every hand's turn for inflicting his bad temper on the human race.

I am sorry for Senator Lanigan because he has to go into bat on a totally indefensible wicket and the measure of that was that he had to have recourse to saying the same things over and over again. What he said amounted to the fact that this is all an act of God anyway like blue babies, that there is nothing you can do about it except maybe take legal action whereas the facts of the matter are quite clear. Here is a particular category of totally innocent people who are the victims of a State agency, who have a particular claim now on the State's responsibility. In a sense the State is responsible to all AIDS victims. I am not the one to draw censorious distinctions between innocent AIDS victims and guilty AIDS victims. Nonetheless, the facts are there: the State has done an injury to these people and in any kind of moral code are entitled to redress and balance.

I would like the Minister of State to convey to the Minister the point I am going to make now. The Minister on more than one occasion in this controversy has brought up the example of what would happen, for example, in any given housing estate where there were two widows, where one husband was a haemophiliac and had died as a result of his totally involuntary if you like, contraction of the AIDS virus and the other husband had been infected with the fatal AIDS virus because of his homosexual-bisexual lifestyle. The Minister asked a rhetorical question, "how do you expect me to explain to one widow that I will have to treat the other family different?" If that totally hypothetical example did actually occur — it is a very far-out theoretical supposition anyway — I think the Minister would simply have to say to the widow of the person whose lifestyle had been a factor in his contracting the AIDS virus: "I am sorry, your neighbour next door has been ill-served by the State, is a victim of a State agency and the State has a special claim on him which I am afraid your family has not". The distinctions have to be made. It is a tough thing to have to do but it has to be done. Apparently Senator Lanigan is quite prepared to witness the State being dragged into court on this issue. I am not and, like Senator Bulbulia, I think the State should have the imagination and the generosity to settle this matter right now.

I want to put on the record my appreciation of the Fine Gael group allowing our motion to be discussed in conjunction with their motion. I want to thank Senator Murphy for sharing his time with me now. I know there are many speakers who want to speak on this particular subject in support of the case that is being made for the Haemophilia Society. I attended a briefing session with the Haemophilia Society and attended on a deputation to the Minister for Health with people like Deputy Garret FitzGerald who was Taoiseach in the year when the untreated H factors were added which created the problem. He expressed the view that in his opinion — as a former Taoiseach — the Government have a moral responsibility for the fact that people were unwittingly injected with a particular blood factor which has created the problem.

I was also conscious that when we visited the Minister's office to discuss a case with him he had this dilemma which has been elaborated on by Senator Murphy that he was finding difficulty in differentiating between the sufferers of AIDS, irrespective of how they contracted the disease. It was because of that that the Labour Party felt the appropriate wording to allow the Minister to respond positively to the Haemophialia Association's case was to broaden it but also to be specific about the special case of haemophiliacs. While I realise we can only have one motion before the House at any given time — I will not move my motion until the end of the debate next week — I would like, with the Chair's permission, to address the motion of the Labour Party, I want to do that by putting on the record first of all our support totally for the concept as outlined by the Fine Gael group but also bearing in mind the Minister's attitude to the case that has been made on the basis of the mortality of the State accepting responsibility for any action they were involved in through some State agency which, unwittingly, created the special problems for haemophiliacs.

I happened to discuss this matter, as Senator Bulbulia did in her constituency, with people in my constituency who are sufferers of haemophilia. It would frighten anybody with a responsibility in this country to hear to the trauma that has been created because of blood factors which were added before 1985. Certainly up to and including 1982 it was unknown that Factor 8 and Factor 9 would create any problems. It is in that context that we deliberately worded our motion which says:

That Seanad Éireann recognises the special position of haemophilia sufferers who are also AIDS victims; considers that the State has a particular responsibility to all AIDS victims, and that the State must take into account that in many cases haemophilia sufferers contracted AIDS through blood products supplied, albeit unwittingly, by a State agency; in these particular circumstances, believes that the State should follow the precedent established in the case of the Stardust victims, where the issue of liability did not become an obstacle to ensuring that adequate and fair provision was made to all who had suffered; and calls on the Government, and particularly the Minister for Health, to ensure that every public health facility is made available to all AIDS victims, irrespective of income.

We set out our motion in a quite specific fashion. We wanted to ensure that the special case of haemophiliacs was addressed by the Government because in their case it was vital for them to get the special factor added to their blood in order to survive. This innocent group of people have been most reasonable in the case they have made to the Minister.

They have not said specifically that he is legally responsible. They have been moderate and reasonable in the case they have made and in the way they have presented it both to the Minister and the Minister of State who is responsible for the delivery of health services. We contend that the Minister for Finance should also be involved because, in the final analysis, possibly he would have control of setting up a trust fund. The Minister for Health may feel he is only responsible for the delivery of a health service, either of a curative or preventative nature and thus there may be a division of responsibilities.

The gesture the Minister has offered of some compensation by way of assisting the society and by bringing them in to sit on a committee is a beginning at least. As has been proven in other countries, precedents have been set by other Governments without admitting liability that there is a moral case to be answered.

The Leader of the House suggested that if there was a genuine case why not go to court and prove it. I respectfully suggest that many of the people I have seen and spoken to could not afford litigation. They certainly could not afford to wait for the length of time this type of legal process would take in preparation and in proving the case.

I draw the attention of the Acting Chairman to the lack of a quorum in the House on this important debate.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted, and 12 Members being present,

The debate is a very serious one and the Leader of the House suggested that possibly litigation was the answer to this problem. I was making the point that litigation might sound an easy way out of the problem but if there is legal responsibility by agencies other than the State then this would take time.

From the statistics presented by the Irish Haemophilia Society to the Government 12 months ago we know that people died who contracted AIDS through the use of the clotting factor. Every moment we waste we lose a life and people lose the ability to get adequate treatment, insurance cover to protect their families by way of mortgage protection and all the facilities of the State which are normally available to everybody else in society who do not have this health problem. These people in addition to their own tragic health problem have this added dimension which makes it impossible for them to provide the normal back-up services for their families.

In the House of Commons there was all-party agreement on the issue. This was as a result of an all-party committee which was set up to deal with the matter. I suggest that the Minister might consider setting up an all-party committee to examine the problem and keep politics out of it. If the motion is defeated here, as sure as day follows night, in the other House there will be a combined effort by people in Opposition to out-vote the Government and force their hand. That is not the way to address the problem and I am suggesting a compromise to the Minister that he might consider. I thank the Chair for his leniency in allowing me to make that point. It is an irrefutable case. We will formally move Item No. 44 on Wednesday next.

Acting Chairman

What does the Leader of the House propose to do about this motion?

We will adjourn the debate now as there are no further speakers and leave it until next week.

Acting Chairman

There will be two hours remaining next week. Do we carry forward the time?

There are two parties involved and perhaps we should.

Debate adjourned.

I propose that we take a sos until 4.20 p.m. and then take Item No. 2.

Sitting suspended at 4.5 p.m. and resumed at 4.20 p.m.
Top
Share