Bid to submit slides as evidence fails

By FRANCESCA MOLD

An attempt to have four slides from the woman whose cervical smear misreading sparked a ministerial inquiry admitted as evidence has been refused by panel chairwoman Ailsa Duffy, QC.

At the Gisborne hearing yesterday, the lawyer for women affected, Stuart Grieve, tried to have the slides accepted into evidence.

They were the subject of a High Court lawsuit last year involving the woman and retired pathologist Dr Michael Bottrill.

Mr Grieve wanted expert Australian pathologist Dr Annabelle Farnsworth to microscopically check the slides and give her opinion on whether the results should have sparked an alert among New Zealand pathologists who reviewed them in 1995.

Dr Farnsworth, whose laboratory rescreened almost 23,000 of Dr Bottrill's slides, was to have given evidence at the inquiry today.

Ms Duffy ruled the slides could not be accepted because of the line of questioning Mr Grieve was following and because of time constraints.

Since last week, Mr Grieve has grilled pathologist Dr Clint Teague about why he did not alert health authorities about the four misread slides or act on information that he received about another woman whose smears were also reported wrongly.

Mr Grieve believed there had been a failure of "internal morality" among pathologists. He accused them of putting "collegiality" above the needs of the women.

In July 1995, Dr Teague, as coordinator of a laboratory committee that reviews slides if there are any concerns about errors, received 10 slides from Dr Bottrill.

They were checked by five different laboratories and the results sent back to Dr Bottrill.

The first slide had been reported by Dr Bottrill as showing low grade abnormalities.

The review team found it to be high grade.

The second and third slides were reported normal by Dr Bottrill and high grade by the panel.

The fourth was reported as high grade by Dr Bottrill and as carcinoma by the panel.

Mr Grieve asked Dr Teague whether he thought he should have taken action after receiving the review committee results.

"If I had believed the safety of the women was in jeopardy I would have taken further steps," replied Dr Teague.

When making her ruling, Ms Duffy said Mr Grieve could not rely on Dr Farnsworth's testimony that she might have taken action if she had seen the slides in 1995.

She said Dr Farnsworth could not be seen as an independent expert because she had been working for the Health Funding Authority.

Ms Duffy also said the inquiry panel believed that sufficient evidence was scheduled and had been heard for it to be able to report to the Health Minister.

She said it was crucial the hearings finish next week.