asked the Minister for Health if his attention has been drawn to the distress caused to parents of children who are mentally and physically handicapped who received the three-in-one vaccination injections as infants and on whose behalf claims for compensation have been denied by the committee which he established; and if he will reconsider the decision already made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Whooping Cough Vaccination.
8.
Persons, who it was claimed, were permanently damaged by whooping cough vaccination were examined by the Independent Expert Medical Group on Whooping Cough Vaccination which is composed of three medical experts.
The expert group examined each person and also all the relevant medical records on the cases and consulted those doctors, including the family doctor, who had a knowledge of a particular case, before making its decision. Having carried out this comprehensive examination the group concluded whether, on the balance of probability, a person's disability was caused by whooping cough vaccination. In a particular case when any doubt existed, the group gave that individual the benefit of that doubt.
In the circumstances, particularly in view of the independent nature of the expert medical group, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to reconsider the decisions of the group.
Would the Minister agree that the parents of the children who are caught in this situation are left with a very distressing problem with regard to the future of their children now? The Minister is aware, from representations I have made to him and his predecessor, of an infant who was perfectly normal, had passed all the usual tests that take place after a birth and was growing month after month but after the injection, changes were seen in the infant. In the case that I have brought to the Minister's attention on a number of occasions, the child involved is now a teenager and has the mental and physical capacity of an infant. He never grew mentally or physically and the parents are totally convinced that their child's condition is as a result of that vaccination. Despite what the Minister has said, would he agree, in regard to doubt, that the doubt should have been given in favour of the parents claiming on the child's behalf but was not given, that the family doctors in many of these cases——
Brevity, please.
——and in this case which the Minister knows about, have stated——
I am sorry Deputy, you should bring your question to a conclusion.
——that the child was perfectly normal prior to the injection? In view of that would the Minister not consider that the State should make an ex gratia payment to the parents on behalf of the children who are caught in this situation?
The Deputy is raising a very specific matter. It is worthy of a separate question.
As I have said, the expert group who were set up in 1977 are composed of three medical personnel of high standing and they advise the Department on each individual case. Many of these cases would not have come to the Department's notice until long after the occurrence of the illness from which they may have suffered. My advice is that where there was a doubt, the group gave the benefit of the doubt to the patient.
That is not good enough.
The Minister said that the matter was decided on the balance of probabilities. I take it that was the basic rule? He went on to say that where any doubt existed the benefit of that doubt was given to the person who was alleged to have been injured by the vaccination. Are we to take it from that that the group operated on the basis that in all cases where they have refused compensation it has been on the basis that they have no doubt whatsoever that the injuries were caused by the vaccination? If any doubt exists and you give the benefit of the doubt to the injured person, it seems to suggest that where there is a refusal the experts have decided they have no doubt on the issue and there is no connection whatsoever. That seems to be a million miles removed from deciding something on the balance of probabilities. I ask the Minister to clarify which of these two criteria was used on this occasion. I suggest to him that it was the former and not the latter and that the benefit of any doubt is not given to people.
As I said, the group comprised a number of doctors who were eminently suited to assess each individual case. They did that and they made their decision on each individual case. I am advised that they gave their opinion on each case and gave the benefit of the doubt where there was doubt.
I cannot accept that reply. Will the Minister accept that the committee stated that they could not say for definite and without doubt that the condition of the children was due to the three-in-one vaccination? There is surely a very big difference between that and stating that they were without doubt that it was caused by the three-in-one injection. They never said that. Surely the Minister will agree that what was stated by his committee was that they could not be certain that the condition of the child was due to the injection. Therefore, surely a doubt exists and surely there is a duty on the Minister and on this Dáil to protect parents whose children have suffered so tragically because of this State administered scheme.
I have allowed the Deputy a lot of latitude.
A group of 93 children were examined by the group between its establishment in 1984 and its conclusion in 1987. The group concluded that 77 were not damaged by the vaccine.
I want to ask a further question. I am not satisfied with the reply.
I have allowed a lot of latitude. If the Deputy is dissatisfied with the reply, he has a way out.
I ask the Ceann Comhairle for his indulgence. Would the Minister care to reply to the question I asked about the doubt and about the conviction of the committee and not read out statistics?
This question is leading to a lot of repetition.
It was not answered.
The group concluded that 77 of those examined were not damaged by the vaccine and that there was a reasonable probability that the disability of the other 16 could be attributed to whooping cough vaccine. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that the vaccine caused the disability in any of the persons.
Could I ask the Minister——
Deputy Molloy, please desist.
This is a very tragic case.
It is indeed. I have told the Deputy how he can pursue the matter. It must rest as it is now.
I will communicate with the Deputy.