Brigid Ellen McCole, who died tragically early as a result of liver failure following hepatitis C because of receiving blood products contaminated with the hepatitis virus, was a brave and determined woman. The sense of loss which her husband and family must feel has to be enormous and deserving of the deepest sympathy. The sense of loss felt by all those other people who know themselves to be infected by hepatitis C must also be painfully sharp. And most of them will be aware that Mrs McCole's death now effectively deprives them of a High Court opinion on the validity and value of claims against the Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) - at least until the next case comes before that Court - because her case was settled just prior to her death and she died before the settlement could be reported to the Court.
Thus, the uncertainties which have characterised the whole sorry saga of hepatitis C since the late 70s, seem set to continue. At the start, the uncertainty was about the disease itself: the causative virus had not been identified, and it was to be the 80s before a reliable diagnostic test became available to detect the virus itself or antibodies against it. Medical understanding of the condition was far from complete and there were (and are) uncertainties about the course the illness might take in different people and about the effectiveness of various treatments in its amelioration.
Since 1994, when the public were first made aware of the possibility of hepatitis C infection following the administration of blood products, the uncertainties shave multiplied. Exactly when did the BTSB become aware of the existence of the virus in some of its stock? Did it knowingly administer a contaminated product to some of its clients? Would it, or the State, provide compensation to those infected? Would these people do better to make application to the tribunal which was eventually established to deal with claims (and possibly thereby lose the right to make subsequent claims through the courts), or should they hold out for direct legal action? Had the expert committee established by the Minister for Health been given all the information available before it made its report on the affair? The questions and the controversies increased.
The uncertainties attendant upon simply knowing that one has hepatitis C are hard enough to live with, without having to bear the additional uncertainties created by procrastination and possible prevarication by those whose societal duty it was to deal humanely and supportively with the crisis. That there should be anger along with the anxiety must surely be understood by all but the most obtuse. There were perfectly understandable requests that the closing date for making application to the tribunal should be postponed until after the numerous court cases had been heard and adjudicated upon.
Now that there must be a further postponement of the first High Court hearing on the matter, two urgent steps are required to try to offer some hope of making the administrative uncertainties slightly less burdensome. The officers of the Court must move to bring forward the date of the hearing of the next case. And the Minister for Health must make amply clear that access to the tribunal will remain open until all those who may wish to make application to it have had the opportunity of hearing the High Court's judgments on the issue.