Dr Hilary Pickles
WS Questions
4.3 - Was she asked to provide oral evidence to Penrose?
29.2 - Should there have already existed a procedure to involve the medical policy branch of DH in relation to product recalls and/or the investigation of suspected cases of TTI?
Would this have been advantageous in, for example, the 1970s and 1980s?
39.2 - How did Ministerial attitudes towards those who developed AIDS change over time? We know for example Edwina Currie famously once said publicly that “Good Christian people who would not dream of misbehaving will not catch Aids.”
42.3 - Would it be right to interpret that her observation was that crown immunity contributed towards poor practices?
46.2 - Would it also be right then that she would have no experience in relation to the risks and benefits of alternative forms of treatment to Factor concentrates?
50.2 - Why had the SMO post in haematology been vacant for almost a year?
77.3 - When she says Dr Rejman represented the interests of the branch very well in the lit. Can she outline what she understood those interests to be in this context?
80.2 - Can she recall any other occasions where she was asked not to comment at a meeting she was attending?
91.3 She says “The Expert report on Psychosocial Issues helpfully outlines the special factors affecting the subjects of this Inquiry” - By “subjects”, does she mean the topics IBI is examining, or, people impacted by infected blood products?
91.4 “not to be challenged, at least not by DH” - If not by DH, then by who?
92.2 “lots of practices and decisions” - Can she outline specifically what these are?
Non-WS & Additional Documents
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ri8me7q4xjwdiqa/_DSC5965.JPG?dl=0
She was “horrified” because people might look “negligent”?
What made her send this letter?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvq0ehp7elkh9nw/_DSC5431.JPG?dl=0
Is it correct that her understanding was that Dr Rejman was making judgements as to whether or not negligence had taken place?
Did she understand Dr Rejman to be sufficiently qualified and independent to be able to make such judgements?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vdzge0281fwgy7n/_DSC7427.JPG?dl=0
In relation to Para 1 - Does she recall what the “anxieties” over the “documents that could be discovered” were?
Can she elaborate on the concerns she sets out in DHSC0002472_135 re Armour sponsoring the Bulletin.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jasigj5v12o8j0y/If%20this%20gets%20out%202%201990.pdf?dl=0
In regard to the first para. Is it right that, prior to 1990, BPL were restrained in being able to market their products because they were unlicensed?
Can she explain what she meant by “there could be a loss in patient confidence which for example may reflect badly on the HIV litigation now before the courts”
In relation to DHSC0002472_085
Can she confirm ultimately who, if anybody, went to this conference and if she agreed with Canvan’s comments?
In relation to NHBT0000061_137
In para 3, she says "there is negligible risk to patients", but the resulting line to take publicly is “there is no risk to any patient”. Why are these different? Is this an example of the department publicly downplaying levels of risk?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fl9491d93jfsctk/_DSC7441.JPG?dl=0
Can she explain what her intention was behind telling Rejman that "If there are small inconsistencies in your advice and that of expert witnesses, there should be simple explanations that will not lead to any embarrassment"
Why did she tell Rejman that he shouldn’t be drawn into signing affidavits?
Additional During Hearings
12/8 - What does she mean by “deliberately” not engaging with the Penrose Inquiry? Why?
16/2 - She says neither cost or “need” should have been taken into account at all. However, the overwhelming reason for not withdrawing Factor VIII in the July 1983 CSM Meeting was based on “need”. Was this in her view an incorrect basis for assessment?
28/17 - Can she outline specifically what the process is for destroying files in this instance?
