Written answers

Tuesday, 5 December 2006

Department of Health and Children

Vaccination Programme

11:00 pm

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 138: To ask the Minister for Health and Children the reason there will be no further examination of the question of vaccine trials involving babies and children in institutional settings in the 1960s and 1970s; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [41470/06]

Photo of Mary HarneyMary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On Tuesday 28th of November I announced that I had decided that there would be no further examination of the question of Vaccine Trials involving babies and children in institutional settings in 1960/61, 1970 and 1973. The trials which involved both children in institutional settings and within the family home, were the subject of a report by the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Jim Kiely, which was laid before the Oireachtas in November 2000.

This decision follows a detailed examination of judgements in court cases heard in both the High and Supreme Court. As the House is aware, Justice Ó Caoimh in the High Court in June 2004 adjudged that the essential issue of the matter was not one suggestive of abuse as defined in the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000. The Judge was satisfied that nothing disclosed in Dr Kiely's report suggests that the conduct of the trials was such that they could be said in any way to amount to abuse as defined by the 2000 Act. Justice Ó Caoimh was conscious that the term abuse is widely defined in the Act, but in his judgement it was clear that none of the issues raised in Dr Kiely's report were even suggestive of abuse as so defined in the conduct of the trials. Justice ó Caoimh adjudged that the Additional Functions Order which sought to allow the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse to inquire into the matter of Vaccine trials was ultra vires.

I understand that it is difficult for people to accept not knowing exactly what occurred when they were children in these institutions and that those who were participants in the trials may be disappointed at my decision but the difficulties encountered to date would undoubtedly arise again if this matter was to be investigated by another forum. These difficulties include the availability of persons with a necessary knowledge of events and the scarcity of documentary records of the trials.

It is important to note that there is no evidence available which suggests that any of the participants in the trials had experienced reactions to the vaccines other than those normally expected. There can be no doubt that the consent for the trials described in Dr Kiely's report were certainly not those that would be applied today. However in the era under consideration the levels of consent sought were very different.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.