THE High Court yesterday ordered lawyers for a Carlow woman, suffering from chronic hepatitis C, to expand on her claim that the National Drugs Advisory Board permitted the use of blood products with contaminants.
Ms Mary Quinlan of Greenhills, Brownshill Road, Carlow, is also suing the Blood Transfusion Service Board, the Minister for Health and the State.
Ms Quinlan, a mother of eight, claimed that on dates unknown (until after the discovery of documents), the Blood Transfusion Service and Minister made available to the public blood products licensed by the Drugs Advisory Board.
She alleged she was administered anti D immunoglobulin (anti-D) from her second child onwards. She claimed the defendants failed properly to monitor and screen the blood products and knowingly, for their own gain and profit, permitted the use of blood products with known contaminants. They knew of non-A and non-B hepatitis like reaction from anti-D.
She alleged the Blood Transfusion Service, the Minister and the National Drugs Advisory Board "sought to conceal the existence of the difficulties to members of the public and furthermore sought to conceal the existence of the terminal nature of the illness.
As a consequence, it was claimed Ms Quinlan faced the prospect of death from the illness which her medical advisers had said was a probability as distinct from a possibility and it was estimated her life would be seriously shortened.
Mr Denis McDonald, for the National Drugs Advisory Board, said from a reading of Ms Quinlan's claim, he did not know what was alleged to be the board's role in the matter. The board did not know what it ought to have done to prevent this tragedy.
The woman's lawyers claimed this was a matter of evidence (at the hearing of her action) but his clients could not deliver a defence to the claim until they knew what the allegations were.
Mr McDonald said Ms Quinlan's lawyers must state under what statutory requirement they claimed his clients were involved in the "administration" of anti D. He added that Ms Quinlan's statement of claim alleged positive acts by his clients to prevent information of this tragedy being made known to victims and the public in general.
This claim had not been made in any other similar proceedings and he would need to know what was being alleged.
Counsel for Ms Quinlan said they had made full replies at this stage and when the had discovery of documents, more particulars would follow.
Mr Justice Morris said he was only dealing with procedural matters. The National Drugs Advisory Board had brought the application, not for any purpose to hold up passage of these actions through the court. The board claimed it could not put in its defence to Ms Quinlan's claim until it knew the case it had to meet and he considered that was reasonable.
With regard to certain applications for information, the judge agreed to the board's request. There was, for example, a direct allegation that the defendants having become aware of difficulties, sought to conceal these from the public.
It seemed clear that somebody about whom such allegations were made was entitled to ask for particulars so as to know the case being made against that person and to be able to prepare a defence.
It was never the intention of procedural cases in court to hamper any party in the conduct of its case. The purpose of a motion of this kind was to decide which requests were reasonable, and which were not.