26 July 2022: Keel - B

We were reminded of the Anne Robinson likeness as the witness leaned forward in readiness for the next series of cuts as part of the thousand. Sadly, for her (Keel not Robinson) the next topic was the issue of testing and the details involved in the strengths and weaknesses related to HCV. Prof Keel seems fine with commenting on aspects of the pros and cons of testing when she thought it would explain or justify her actions. “HCV for Dummies” is available at all good bookshops.

A very specific situation came up involving a meeting where a matter was raised which included the witness and Bill Wright who was “sitting there”. She had clearly read and watched his evidence, and it came as no surprise that she disagreed with his recollection of the meeting. This writer notes how close he was sitting to Bill during this sorry episode in the evidence. Unlike the witness, he was able to leave the room with his dignity intact. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the impacts of this witnesses’ involvement at the time and at the Inquiry, the what three words which come to mind were “Uncaring, Incompetent, and Wicked”.

The Dora Report contained a willingness by that author to accept the assertion where clinicians had not deliberately misled their patients about the risks of using Factor VIII. Counsel highlighted how narrow this comment was, and how insightful the comments of Ms Dora now were becoming related to concerns among clinicians about possible litigation.

Communications with the UK Department of Health illustrated the consistent message about not setting a “dangerous precedent” (a phrase she still agreed with) which might open the “floodgates” across the NHS. The suggestion was to “point the Minster” away from compensation. In an email chain, civil servants were discussing how to handle their respective Ministers, with one saying they hoped it would not result in compensation. That comment came from Ms Dora, the same civil servant who authored the internal Scottish Government review. No prejudicial thinking or conflict there, then. This writer would mention the frequent appearance of Sandra Falconer as a civil servant involved in these matters. At the time of this all playing out, he was linking with Ms Falconer on a completely unrelated matter, with neither being aware of the other’s involvement in the Contaminated Blood Scandal. Had that connection been made, who knows what impact that common interest being known would have had.

The Health and Community Care Committee became persuaded of the “moral case” of patients infected by the NHS administration of infected products. They noted that the impacts of HCV lead to consequences very similar to those of HIV. Of course, given the witnesses’ previously desire to put a big gap between these, she probable saw the Committee as the enemy. They were minded to set up some kind of scheme, while stressing the need not to set a dreaded precedent. The response by the witness to the Committee Report sought to undermine each of the content elements she did not like. Prof Keel indulged in some “whataboutism” (ie. other groups might say they had a claim, too), which is a sure sign the person using this weak argument strategy is struggling to find an assertion which stands up on its own merits. She called the Committee “slightly naïve”; obviously, no arrogance intended.

Rather than agree to the Committee’s recommendations, the Scottish Government set up the Lord Ross Expert Group. She said she was not involved in the Lord Ross activity (… thank goodness for that). She regretted how the “Burton Judgment” led politicians away from her preferred line (… she never said it like that, but that is what she meant). How dare a senior judge make a considered judgement which went against the thoughts over what was best in the eyes of Prof Keel (… more audacity from a lesser person who disagreed with the witness).

The Ross Report resulted in the then Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm, agreeing to set up a scheme for people infected by the HCV viruses. Her involvement was “minimal”. Clearly it was a “political decision made in Cabinet”. Once again, how dare the leading politicians have the audacity to disagree with the witness. Who did they think they were? There was even an agreement to settle out of court with those claimants who had raised litigation under the Consumer Protection Act. Talk about rubbing salt in her worthy wounds. She had been so badly wronged. Give the woman some compensation, quick, so she goes away and never comes back. Her view was that it was settled on entirely legal grounds and not medical. It is assumed that in her mind doctors were more intelligent and right in their pronouncements than lowly lawyers and Government Ministers.

Counsel then reviewed the shifting position in England with the “n0-way-no-pay” Milburn position shifting to a Reid recompense response. It must have seemed to the witness she was watching her world crumble around her. Again, she did not recall being involved in the activities arising from these shifts. Was that lack of involvement in issues which had been her baby for so long an act of kindness to avoid her blushes, or was it to keep her away from interfering in a course she so obviously didn’t want to see flourish? However, Prof Keel did manage to provide a disruptive and damage-limitation role in relation to the criteria for discriminating between Stage 1 and Stage 2 awards. She was asked if there was a series of meetings to agree a trigger-point to which she replied, “I honestly cannot remember”. Having inserted the word “honestly” in this response, does that imply a lack of this adverb in all her other answers (… speaking analytically, of course).

Guess who popped up in the considerations on the criteria for paying (or not) as a way of avoiding “inconsistencies”. It was the old chestnut Christine Lee, that well-known bird of prey, the antithesis of a “dove”. Clearly, Prof Keel could not find a sufficiently hard-headed and heartless harbinger of minimisation, or laugh-a-minute commentator on all things connected with contaminated blood in Scotland, so had to look downwards for a kindred-spirit (… no, not Hell, not that far down … yet).