Each of the women is seeking compensation of $50,000 for the "awful agony" suffered as a result of the uncertainty and fear created by the mass under-reporting of smears in Gisborne between 1990 and 1996.
The woman who sparked the ministerial inquiry called yesterday on health officials to "have a heart," pay the compensation and save women the pain of battling the legal system, as she has done since 1999.
Known to Herald readers as Jane because her name is suppressed, she said women had been through enough.
Health Minister Annette King has agreed to meet the women's lawyers, but refused to discuss the issue further yesterday.
The inquiry report ruled out compensation for women, saying personal injury was covered by ACC.
It said Dr Bottrill had worked alone, had not implemented a quality-control programme and had not been committed himself to ongoing training.
As well, it said, his laboratory was not accredited.
Dr Bottrill was not at the meeting in Gisborne yesterday but in a statement he expressed sorrow and regret to those who had suffered from relying on his cervical smear reports.
'I hope that this report will result in appropriate action needed to benefit the health of all women who have been part of the cervical screening programme or will in the future be involved in that programme."
His lawyer, Christopher Hodson, QC, said the Duffy report had said the ministry designed and developed the national cervical screening programme poorly and failed to set standards, monitor and evaluate the programme's performance over the past 10 years.
These failings had allowed Dr Bottrill's mistakes to go undetected.
The three-woman panel that conducted the inquiry recommended a series of improvements, including completion of a national evaluation of the screening programme, amending legislation to allow access to women's medical records without their consent, setting up a complaints system and developing legal mechanisms to allow for sharing complaints with disciplinary bodies and other agencies such as ACC.
The Ministry of Health has appointed an international expert on cervical screening, Scottish pathologist Dr Euphemia McGoogan, as a watchdog to ensure the report's recommendations are implemented.
Women at yesterday's meeting said they were pleased the report covered many of the issues they had raised.
But they were angry that no one was prepared to accept responsibility for what had happened.
Karen Middleton, who has terminal cancer, said those in charge of the programme should be held accountable.
"I've got cancer. I'm going to die one day. I need something more solid than saying, 'Look to the future,' because I don't have one."
Mrs King said the report did not set out to blame or say there was a "sacrificial head that should roll."
"It sets out the future and we need to concentrate on that."
She outlined a series of improvements to the programme since 1996, and said 27 of the 46 recommendations in the report had been or were being implemented.
The Government would amend the law by introducing a two-part bill. The first section, to be passed this year, would deal with regulations to allow an audit of cervical cancer cases, mandatory reporting of bad practice and temporary suspension of doctors.
The second half would deal with "less pressing issues," said Mrs King.
The Director-General of Health, Dr Karen Poutasi, said lessons would be learned from the inquiry, and the ministry was doing every-thing it could to improve the programme.
Dr Poutasi said she felt ashamed of the ministry's role in the programme's failings.
"I regret we didn't have in place a programme that could, in hindsight, be relied on."
Several women spoke of their concern that the report did not recommend the programme be moved away from the ministry to a stand-alone cancer control agency.
The Cancer Society said it hoped the programme would eventually become part of a national agency specialising in cancer control.
Jane described the report as balanced, but said it did not reveal any surprises for those who had been at the inquiry.
She was pleased it had addressed concerns about doctors not reporting incompetent colleagues.
But she believed that pathologists who had been accused of not acting on concerns about Dr Bottrill had escaped blame.
Full report of the Inquiry
