Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

399. To ask the Minister for Health if he will meet with a person (details supplied) in relation to the contamination of anti-D; if his attention has been drawn to a commitment made in May 2012 by former Minister Reilly to re-examine this issue and the compensation schemes; if his attention has further been drawn to a Trinity College study being undertaken on this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28234/16]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have received a letter from the person to whom you refer and my Department is considering the issues raised.

I understand this person is seeking access for a group of women who received infectious, or potentially infectious, Anti-D Immunoglobulin in two periods (between 1977 and 1979 and between 1991 and 1994) and who tested negative for Hepatitis C to claim compensation from the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal and to be awarded HAA cards.

The Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006, provides clear scientific grounds for the definition of “diagnosed positive for Hepatitis C”. Under this legislation a diagnosis must arise (a) from a positive result from one of three specific tests for the presence of Hepatitis C virus, or (b) from the presence of antibodies to the virus, or (c) based on evidence of jaundice up to 16 weeks after the administration of Anti-D Immunoglobulin. I am satisfied that no new scientific evidence has emerged in this regard.

I am aware that Trinity College are planning to carry out a study with the aim of exploring why some people appear to have a natural protection from Hepatitis C.