Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Header


The next issue of negligence where again Res Ipsa Locquitor prevails is described below:

6.5 PROCESSING THE PITUITARY GLANDS BY CSL.


The Department of Health is aware of recipients treated in the late 60s after referral to the QEH/Professor Cox records

The batch number that some recipients were treated with was batch number 003-02 and was released in November , 1967. This was an experimental batch. CSL had a policy of a two year expiry date for similar non experimental commercial products. As part of the Code of Good Manufacturing Practice and common sense, quite clearly this batch should have been discontinued in 1969. Instead it was used well beyond its expiry date.(Allars Report.)(CSL notes) Recipients were treated with an expired batch!

In June1968 the experimental batch 3 was identified as containing pyrogens and there was no recall. Other contamination in CSL batches were identified in the Allars Report. CSL continued distribution without action in regard to these problems. (CSL report June, 1968). CSL and the Department showed no regard to the health of the Australian public who were to be the recipients of this contaminated experimental batch.


They have breached their duty of care by claiming that the Commonwealth of Australia and CSL have no duty of care to the Australian Public. A Government Department should never deny that it does not have a duty to disclose information that may impact on the health of the individual.

The carers of victims, were exposed to possible cross infection in the period when the Department was failing to adequately address the responsibility of the alleged guilty parties of minimising risk to the carers.
The Department of Health is now unable to determine at any time in the future as to whether the carers have contracted CJD through exposure or have contracted it through maternal transmission.

The American Vaccine Trust Fund is of similar nature and has the same problems.

Quite clearly, the provision of a Trust Fund without implied negligence does not benefit recipients in any way. In fact it reduces the quality of life substantially due to the increased stress level to have to react almost daily to the barriers that the Department erects.

All of the literature indicates that there is no definitive diagnosis, yet the Department has now chosen to require a definitive diagnosis93 prior to further access to the Trust Fund, thus reducing their exposure to higher care costs.

The Commonwealth Department of Health in denying access by recipients to the Trust Fund states that negligence is not proven or admitted and therefore access to the Trust Fund is at their discretion.


Res Ipsa Loquitor (the facts speak for themselves)
The facts detailed above clearly demonstrate negligence