Questions
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 14 May (WA 229–30) on the implications for haemophilia patients of a post-mortem having found vCJD in the spleen of one such patient, what was the outcome of the CJD Incidents Panel's consideration of the case and its implications on 20 May; who attended the panel's meeting; and why it was not held nearer to the date of the postmortem. [HL3959]
The Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) incidents panel, at its meeting on 20 May 2009, reviewed all available information in relation to the postmortem finding of abnormal prion protein associated with variant CID (vCJD) in a sample from the spleen of a haemophiliac.
The panel concluded that there is no evidence to change the current advice to those patients who used United Kingdom sourced pooled plasma products between 1980 and 2001 already notified as being at risk of vCJD for public health purposes, or to notify any new groups of patients.
Letters confirming this conclusion will be sent to UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors with information to pass on to their patients.
The panel meeting was attended by:
Chairman Mr David Pryer Lay Chairman Deputy Chairman Professor Don Jeffries Virology Members Dr Miles Allison Gastroenterology Dr Gerry Bryant Public Health Medicine Professor Geoff Craig Dental Surgery Dr Pat Hewitt Blood Safety Professor James Ironside TSE Infectivity, Neuropathology Mrs Diana Kloss Law Professor John Lumley General Surgery Mrs Caroline Ness Lay Member Dr Derek Norfolk Haematology Mr Ian Pearce Ophthalmology Dr Patrick Radford Anaesthesiology Dr Geoff Ridgway Microbiology Professor John Saunders Medical Ethics Ms Gillian Turner Patient Support Dr Hester Ward Epidemiology Professor Bob Will Neurology Ms Kate Woodhead Theatre Nursing Dr Tim Wyatt Microbiology Observers Dr Peter Bennett HPIH&SD Analytical Team, Department of Health Mr Stephen Dobra HPIH&SD Analytical Team, Department of Health Dr Sara Hayes (from fpm) National Assembly of Wales Miss Charlotte Mirrielees Scientific Secretary, ACDP TSE Working Group Mr Mark Noterman Department of Health Visitors Prof Frank Hill UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation Dr Peter Rudge Neurology Secretariat Dr Nicky Connor Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections Ms Dominique Brookes Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections Ms Helen Janecek Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections Dr Elizabeth Rudd Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections Dr Akram Zaman Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections
The meeting was held after all the evidence in this case, including multiple sets of case notes, hospital records and records of blood product usage, had been collected and reviewed and a full risk assessment prepared. Papers about this case are being prepared for publication and the risk assessment will be published on the department's website at dh.gov.uk on 9 June 2009.
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 14 May (WA 229–30), whether it remains the view of the Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health that any risk to haemophilia patients of contracting vCJD from blood given from donors who subsequently died of vCJD is hypothetical. [HL3960]
There have been no clinical cases of vCJD amongst people with haemophilia who have been treated with United Kingdom-derived pooled plasma products or UK-derived coagulation factors. The view of the department, the chief medical officer and the Health Protection Agency remains that first set out in 2004, that patients who have been treated with UK-sourced pooled factor concentrates and antithrombin between 1980 and 2001 are at increased risk of vCJD for public health purposes.
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the statement by Lord Thomas of Gresford on 23 April (Official Report, House of Lords, col. 1613) in the debate on the use of NHS blood products contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C in the treatment of haemophilia patients that if Ministers chose to back-date as necessary the waiving of Crown immunity it would still be possible for actions to be brought by those afflicted or bereaved by the contamination. [HL3961]
Crown immunity did not protect from civil suit, but only from prosecution under the Medicines Act. Some affected persons did bring an action in 1990, which was settled out of court. Affected persons did and do therefore have rights of redress in civil law.