Medical team anxious that stress should stop `as soon as possible'

Former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey is terminally ill with prostate cancer and should not be called again to give evidence to the Moriarty tribunal, according to a report given to the tribunal.

Mr Haughey was diagnosed with prostate cancer in October 1995 and the progress of the disease has been "particularly marked over the past six months", the medical report states. The stress involved in giving evidence to the tribunal is shortening his life expectancy, it says.

Counsel for Mr Haughey, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, made a submission to the tribunal yesterday at the outset of a brief public hearing, during which he read extracts from a recent medical report and gave further opinion on Mr Haughey's health from consultant urologist Mr Peter McLean.

He said the decision to make public the details of Mr Haughey's medical condition had been taken by Mr Haughey and Mr McLean. It was clear an issue was developing between the tribunal and Mr Haughey over whether he should be called to give further evidence.

Mr McGonigal said Mr McLean examined Mr Haughey in October 1995 "when a diagnosis of moderately and analplastic adeno carcinoma of the prostate was established. The lesion was treated with external beam radiation therapy."

The disease has progressed and this progression has been particularly marked over the past six months. Mr McGonigal quoted from Mr McLean's report on Mr Haughey of October 9th: "He has now commenced total andogen blockade therapy. This form of treatment is purely palliative and is used together with pain relief in the terminal care of patients with prostatic cancer."

Mr McLean said he had examined Mr Haughey on an afternoon after he had given evidence to the tribunal.

"He was fatigued, stressed and I felt he was slightly disorientated. I concluded unequivocally on medical scientific grounds that he should not appear before any such official bodies in the future unless his general medical condition greatly improves."

He discussed the case with Dr Patrick Kelly, family physician, Dr Michael Maher, a consultant cancer therapist at the Mater Private Hospital, and Prof Thomas J. Fahey, a senior vice-president of clinical programme development at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. "The decision was unanimous."

On January 2nd, 1997, Mr Haughey had a heart attack for which he was treated in the Mater. He is also suffering from other medical conditions, Mr McGonigal said.

Mr Haughey was seen by Prof Fahey in New York in February 2000. Mr McGonigal quoted from another medical report: "In May 2000 Mr Peter McLean wrote his medical report that there is no curative treatment available for this malignant condition at this stage. Palliative pain control therapy should be deferred until symptoms would warrant its invitation.

"It is unfortunate that Mr Haughey has been subjected to so much protracted public pressure and strain in recent years. This has certainly been and continues to be seriously detrimental to his health and general well-being.

"The elimination or reduction of stress in his daily life would have a major beneficial effect on his life expectancy and in preventing further deterioration in his overall medical condition."

A number of medical reports were given to Mr Justice Moriarty by Mr Haughey in July 2000. "Despite the medical opinion which Mr Haughey had then been given, he continued to co-operate with the tribunal and has given evidence over a number of weeks," Mr McGonigal said.

Following the receipt of a further report on October 9th, Mr Justice Moriarty was given permission to discuss Mr Haughey's medical condition with his legal team, which met Mr Haughey's legal team and Mr McLean on October 11th. Mr McGonigal said Mr McLean would welcome the tribunal appointing its own legal team to examine Mr Haughey.

The tribunal was examining the situation from its own perspective but Mr Haughey's medical team was looking at it from the point of view of Mr Haughey's "very life expectancy".

On medical and scientific grounds, it had made an assessment that "because of the high level of mental and physical stress caused to the patient, the constant ongoing pressure involved and the life-threatening nature of the situation, he should not be subjected to this process any further, either in public or in private".

Mr McGonigal said the situation was unusual in that it was the medical team, through Mr McLean, who had effectively intervened in relation to the ability of Mr Haughey to give evidence.

Mr McLean, he said, had considered the possibility of other regimes for Mr Haughey's giving evidence "and has confirmed that there is no regime that he is prepared to recommend, having regard to the deteriorating and continuing deterioration of Mr Haughey's health.

"In his view, having regard to his present condition, the stress which is causing and contributing to the shortening of his life expectancy should be ceased as soon as possible."

Mr McGonigal said Mr Haughey's legal team would like the tribunal to seek an independent medical view so it could be assured it had come to a correct conclusion.