Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The HSE opening statement reads, "The current primary screening test used by CervicalCheck is a cytology test known to have low sensitivity, that is, it produces a not insignificant number of false negative results." Why would we use a system with low sensitivity in a country that has the highest cervical cancer rate of all EU member states? I wish to ask about the claim Mr. O'Brien has just made to the effect that 70% is the average accuracy of the test. That is not the figure that was cited on the Dáil record in 2008. What is a not insignificant number? I will group my questions, if the Chairman does not mind, because I have only half the time of the committee members. Why is the accuracy so low when, in 2008, Irish labs had a 95% accuracy rate, according to Senator James Reilly, who went on to become Minister for Health and who is a doctor. I assume he was not telling a lie. Why would we move to a system that, according to other experts at the time, had an 85% accuracy rate? I refer to the US system. I am not just blaming the witnesses. These were political decisions that were taken. The witnesses are managers. I put it to them that this was testing on the cheap. At the time, Mr. O'Brien, in an article in The Irish Timespublished on 9 May 2008, said he was satisfied Quest Diagnostics could provide the required quality of testing. However, the emphasis in his opening statement today seemed to be on getting 25,000 smear samples done a year with a high turnaround to get the results back in people's hands by a certain amount of time. This seems to sacrifice quality for quantity and a fast turnaround regardless of the results.

I wish to take the following issue up with Mr. O'Brien. He has said, or has given the impression to another Deputy, that two people were looking at every slide in the American labs. Is he satisfied that this was the case? He will be well aware that Dr. Gibbons, who was high up in the HSE and the cervical programme, took issue at the time with this and said this would not be the case. Also, with the difference in the way they test - once every three years there with two pairs of eyes, whereas we tested once a year with one pair-----