EHB stance patronising, court hears

The Eastern Health Board has been accused at the High Court of adopting an attitude of "patriarchal patronisation" in seeking to prevent a coroner's inquest. The inquest would inquire into any possible link between the pertussis or three-in-one vaccine and the death of a Dublin man four years ago.

It was in the public interest that Dublin city coroner, Dr Brian Farrell, should be allowed, in his inquest into the death of Mr Alan Duffy (22) in 1995, to inquire into whether there was a link between pertussis vaccination and brain damage, said Mr Paul Gardiner. He is representing Mr Duffy's parents, Kevin and Vera Duffy, of Howth Road, Clontarf.

The EHB was saying that the medical evidence gathered by Dr Farrell would support its claim that the pertussis vaccine had not contributed to Mr Duffy's death, counsel said. But the board would let the inquest proceed only on the basis that the jury was restricted to bringing in a verdict that the vaccine did not cause brain damage.

The board's real fear was that, while the jury might return what the board regarded as the correct verdict, it might add a rider that could cause adverse publicity for the vaccine. Mr Gardiner said the board's attitude represented a kind of "patriarchal patronisation".

Mr Gardiner was making submissions on the final day of the hearing of a challenge by the EHB to Dr Farrell's conduct of the inquest into the death of Mr Duffy. Mr Duffy died on December 31st, 1995.

The inquest opened in December 1997, but was adjourned to allow for the preparation of medical reports examining any relationship between brain damage and the pertussis vaccine. It has been further adjourned as a result of the EHB's judicial review challenge.

Mr Duffy's parents claim he contracted brain damage as a result of administration of the vaccine between October 1973 and February 1974 and contend that his death in 1995 was contributed to by the vaccine. However, a doctor who treated him at the time of his death claims he died of "aspirational pneumonia due to cerebral palsy".

The EHB is asking the court for a number of orders and declarations, including an order compelling Dr Farrell to direct the jury to record a verdict that Mr Duffy died of "aspirational pneumonia".

It claims the inquest has been carried out in an unfair and unreasonable manner. Dr Farrell denies this charge. He claims it was a matter for the jury to decide whether Mr Duffy died of aspirational pneumonia due to cerebral palsy or due to mental handicap caused by the pertussis vaccine.

Yesterday, Mr Robert Barron, for Dr Farrell, said section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 stated that an inquest had to be confined to the identity of the deceased and how, when and where they died. It was his case that the coroner, in seeking to establish the cause of a death, could go as far as necessary to serve the public interest. It was very much in the public interest to have any possible link between Mr Duffy's death and the pertussis vaccine investigated, counsel said.

Responding for the EHB, Mr Peter Finlay SC said it was not the coroner's function to go back in time to see what caused Mr Duffy's mental retardation. The cause of death was "aspirational pneumonia". He said the Supreme Court has stated that an inquest was a fact-finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt.

Reserving judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the case raised very difficult issues. He hoped to deliver his decision as soon as possible.