19 May 2022: Mellor - D
Mr Mellor walked back in and it was noted how awkward and short his gait was.
Eyes down for the general knowledge questions …
On clinical freedom and the CMO, was he aware of it as an issue: He was aware and related it to GPs in particular, with the need to change from a National Sickness Service to a proper National Health Service. Doctors needed to have the ability to give the best treatment to their patients, so long as cost was a consideration – meaning that branded drugs (expensive) should not be used if there is a generic (cheap) alternative, assuming it produced equally good results. The CMO giving guidance to doctors generally was maybe seen as interfering with clinical freedom, but actually it was better for a doctor-to-doctor process to encourage clinical freedom.
On the specific case of a dying seven-year-old being refused Macfarlane Trust money to buy an electric car before he died: He felt he could not comment without knowing the details, but he would find it hard to refuse anything to a seven-year-old.
On HIV litigation, it was funded centrally, including from the Reserve but what about Wales: He could not even remember reading anything from the Welsh Office, let alone about the question
On the waiver, in the face of new information: He did not know about the detail, but it is normally reasonable to allow for new information to open up the way for new actions, but the witness pleaded “Not guilty” on this matter since he did not know.
On the shift in the Prime Minister’s apparent change of view at short notice: He was not sure there was a change but would need to look at it in more detail. On the idea of William Waldegrave “bouncing the PM into a change”, he said he didn’t think that happened, and anyway, the PM was not easily bounced.
On the matter of the family of an infected person: He thought it should be a consideration in all cases due to the significant impacts on family members going through the traumas with the infected person.
On commercial blood products and UK products being infected: He said he didn’t know at the time about UK products being infected, and he would have been more suspicious of products from a place where payments were involved. He thought it was not difficult to imagine how there would be infectivity in the UK blood supply.
On HCV as an issue in the blood supply: He did not know at the time, and was not involved in that area, but again he could foresee how it would possibly be an issue. He thinks he is not well equipped to answer about the rights and wrongs of separating HIV and HCV but could see why it might not have been good to split them.
On the amount of time Mr Waldegrave would need before making a written statement to Parliament: He would likely have to get permission before doing to, maybe 24 hours before.
Sir Brian asked about the £10m not being enough for the Macfarlane Trust, and the idea that when they got down to about £2m they should come back for more: He was never given advice on the matter, he just arrived at that conclusion himself. He thought £10,000 per person would never be enough if it was meant to last for the rest of their lives, and to support surviving dependents and spouses. Much more would be required to meet the ongoing need. The Chair was concerned that there never appeared to have been a letter confirming the availability of top-up funding to give comfort to the Trust. Mr Mellor referred back to the system with the Treasury of not making long-term promises, but had expressed the view that any attempt by the Trust to seek more money would not be unwelcomed.
On the matter of AIDS having the potential to become a pandemic, the approach was not to moralise as some wanted (including Margaret Thatcher), but to give practical advice to people on how to minimise risks. The Chair summed it up as a matter of hoping for the best but planning for the worst. Mr Mellor noted, thankfully, how much less of a spreading situation it turned out to be compared to what it could have been.
On stigma, it was noted how Mr Mellor wanted to reduce attitudes of stigma, including by making hospital visits with Princess Diana. Too many people thought it was dangerous even to be in the same room as a person with AIDS. Mr Mellor thought the law could be used to reduce stigma, such as by making it illegal for insurance providers to take into account people having viruses. (Good try, Mr Mellor, good try.)
Counsel had another (missed) question about partners and family: He saw the fairness in treating such people equally, but it didn’t come to his attention at the time.
Mr Mellor though the outcome on AIDS was far better than they had thought it would be, albeit it was not a happy story since people did suffer and still do.
The Chair thanked the witness for the good order of his statement. Mr Mellor admitted that while it was all his thoughts, others turned it into the statement. Sir Brian reminded him of the comment that Justice Ognal was a “serious” High Court Judge, which could be inferred that maybe Mr Mellor thought there were some High Court Judges who were not serious. More frivolity ensued to draw the day to an end.
Comments
Post a Comment