John Canavan
WS
2.224 - Is there anyone, other than John Rutherford, who the initials JR could belong to?
For how long did John Rutherford work under him?
Can he expand upon the responsibilities of John Rutherford under him?
What was the relationship between John Rutherford and Dr Rejman?
4.440 - Would it be normal for DH, at this time, to consider "mischief making" by the media, or “reputational damage” to be valid reasons for withholding documents from public scrutiny?
Additional
DHSC0002472_085
What were the “awkward questions about past performance in this country” that he had in mind?
DHSC0002453_012
Can he explain why he reached the conclusion (last para): “We believe that the balance of advantage lies in making a low key announcement about the introduction of HCV testing”?
DHSC0002410_049
(end of 3rd page) Why did he think it important the leaflet “should be distributed to donors with call-up notices or separate mailing in those areas where this is not possible”? (This wasn’t done with the AIDS leaflets in early 80s)
NHBT0000189_155
Can he expand on "results make it very difficult to resist the introduction of screening"? Why was this written in what might be said to be a defensive way? Was there a resistance to introducing the screening?
To what extent did the HIV Haemophilia litigation play a role, if any, in such resistance? (It is noted at this time, even on this same day, Canavan was corresponding with multiple others about the HIV litigation)
If the answer to the above is “it didn’t”. Please can we ask why the HIV litigation didn’t play a role then, but clearly was in his thinking in 1991 as seen in DHSC0002453_012 (about introducing HCV testing) where he opens para 4 by saying “The Department has recently settled the litigation by haemophiliacs infected with HIV through blood products” - Why would he mention this in this letter?
