As the haemophilia tribunal rose for the summer yesterday, Judge Alison Lindsay could be pleased with its pace of progress.
Much ground has been covered over the past six weeks, during which time the inquiry has been focused on the Blood Transfusion Service Board's role in supplying locally-made and imported clotting agents which infected an estimated 220 haemophiliacs with HIV and/or hepatitis C.
Much more has yet to come, however, with the evidence of only three of more than 12 witnesses completed so far on this, the first module of the inquiry.
Future modules will examine the response of the Minister and Department of Health and Children, the supervisory role of the National Drugs Advisory Board and the reporting mechanism between patients and treaters.
Ironically, one of the most important findings to emerge so far was that one of the board's own products, Pelican House-made factor 9, caused seven haemophilia B patients to be infected with HIV in 1985 and 1986 - ironic because the board, along with the State's leading treater of haemophiliacs, Prof Ian Temperley, knew this at the time.
For some reason, however, those infected were never told.
Dr Terry Walsh, the board's former chief medical consultant, reiterated yesterday that it would have been "unethical" of him to have contacted any of the patients.
That does not answer the question asked by counsel for the tribunal, Mr Gerard Durcan SC, as to why the BTSB did not seek to ensure all treaters were informed and that they told their patients.
A common theme of the personal testimony given by victims and their relatives in the opening phase of the tribunal in May was frustration at a lack of knowledge over what caused the infections. It seems clear that for those seven cases, if not for many more, someone somewhere decided the victims should never know.
Another important disclosure at the tribunal was that the BTSB appeared to have ignored a Department of Health safety instruction on the withdrawal of blood products in January 1986 which had not been screened for HIV.
The secretary of the Department had written to the board saying it was "imperative" all such products were immediately recalled. Dr Walsh said this week that the Department's demand was "not a practical proposition" in the case of factor 9 as the board needed a "huge" lead-in time to prepare fresh batches from screened donations.
Dr Walsh said the Department would have been aware of what the BTSB was doing and had not expressed any objection.
On this issue, Dr Walsh has set himself on a collision course not only with the Department but with Prof Temperley, whose counsel, Mr Brian McGovern SC, indicated yesterday that there would be conflicting evidence.
Mr McGovern said his client would argue that he assumed, from a recall notice issued by the board following its meeting with the Department, that all product subsequently issued had come from screened donors. Prof Temperley will, moreover, testify that he was "startled" to learn in June 1986 that unscreened plasma was being used in BTSB products.
Dr Walsh said Prof Temperley had agreed to use heat-treated concentrates made from unscreened donations as an interim measure until a heat-treated and screened product was available. However, Mr McGovern said Prof Temperley would contest this and said it would have been "illogical" to have used untested material after June 1986.
The public sittings will resume on September 12th.