This item was published during the term of a previous administration that ended in April 2007
Listen
No public inquiry on Hepatitis C
16/06/2006
A public inquiry into infection with Hepatitis C through NHS treatment would be unlikely to uncover any new relevant evidence or information and would bring little benefit to the patients involved, Health Minister Andy Kerr said today.
The Minister has written to the Health Committee in response to their call in April for a full judicial inquiry. Mr Kerr's detailed response sets out:
- the background to the UK-wide 'look-back' exercise carried out between 1995-1997 to trace as many patients as possible who had contracted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions;
- continuing Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (SNBTS) investigations of new cases;
- testing for Hepatitis C;
- communication with patients;
- the case for a public inquiry.
He said:
"I have put on record on a number of occasions our sympathy for those who have contracted Hepatitis C through NHS treatment. I want to reiterate those comments again today.
"This has had serious consequences for the lives of many people, and we do not underestimate them. It is for this reason that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers took the lead in ensuring that payments were made under the Skipton Fund to those patients affected, recognising the suffering and hardship involved. The creation of a UK payments scheme has been a significant achievement and step forward.
"The UK-wide look-back exercise was decided by UK Ministers prior to devolution, based on professional advice, and reflected considerations of proportionality and practicability. There can be no case for reopening these issues now. This exercise was a complex undertaking which was a carried out in a targeted and robust way.
"The look-back exercise was fully communicated at the time to the public and to doctors. There was advice available through a helpline to those who were concerned about the risks from transfusion, and advice to doctors on counselling for people at risk and how to arrange for testing. I would like to emphasise that testing and counselling are still available for anyone who considers they are at risk as a result of a transfusion before 1991. Anyone who has concerns can raise those with their GP and request testing.
"A full judicial inquiry would be a major and time-consuming exercise which would depend on the recollections of witnesses about events which took place twenty or more years ago. This would make it difficult to construct a clear and detailed picture of what took place.
"An inquiry would not add significantly to our understanding of how the blood supply became infected with Hepatitis C, or the steps needed to deal with problems of this kind now or in the future. The transmission of Hepatitis C through the blood supply took place in the period before testing was introduced in 1991, and at a time when there was limited scientific and medical knowledge about the condition and the outlook for patients. There is already substantial published evidence on how the understanding of Hepatitis C and its implications for blood donation, blood products and blood transfusion developed over time. A public inquiry would not add to this.
"Practice in terms of communication between health professionals and patients, and assessing and communicating the risks of medical treatment, has changed significantly since the 1980s when these infections occurred and important lessons have been learned. It is highly unlikely that an inquiry would identify new issues or areas for improvement in practice for the future which have not already been discussed or implemented.
"I have considered very carefully the points which were put before the Committee, and discussed by it on 18 April. I do not believe a public inquiry would either uncover any new evidence or information that is relevant to the causes of the infection of NHS patients through blood and blood products, or lead to significant lessons for the future.
"It would be a diversion of effort from delivering and improving health services today. I cannot see that there is any possible justification for the efforts and costs that would be involved, or that this would bring any benefit to the patients involved."