Re: NHS tainted blood scandal

On Tue, 21 May 2024 09:01:16 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

All hail socialized medicine. This is so much worse than the
subpostmaster scandal.
 
Listening to BBC radio this morning, I heard about the massive,
appalling tainted blood scandal that went on for most of the '70s and
'80s. The UK NHS, rather than addressing the issue, simply covered up
the problem, lied to patients, destroyed records, and deliberately
allowed the problem to get worse.
 
To understand this story, you need a bit of background on hepatitis or
inflammation of the liver, a disease known to man throughout history.
In the twentieth century, it became known that most cases were caused
by viruses infecting the liver. The disease was known by "A" and "B",
depending on how the infection was spread. "B" was known to be blood
borne and most cases were suspected to have come from blood
transfusions.
 
By 1963, a protein from "B" had been identified and the blood supply
could be screened for this disease. But this screening didn't
eliminate all the cases from transfusions. By the '70s, the "A" virus
had been identified, and more tests for blood screening became
available but it still didn't eliminate all cases from transfusions.
"C" wasn't identified until 1989.
 
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/news/archive/2016/story-discovery-hepatitis-c-from-non-a-non-b-hepatitis-cure
 
When someone donates blood, the blood is broken down into products,
then re-assembled into something else. The recombined blood had
contributions from lots of donors and if enough donors in the pool
were infected with a blood-borne illness, then the entire batch is
contaminated.
 
Blood is given during surgery, and to treat diseases like haemophilia
and rarer blood diseases. Patients receiving contaminated blood
themselves are highly likely to become infected, given that they are
at their most vulnerable.
 
The UK had a blood shortage and began importing foreign blood in 1973,
especially from the US. Sometimes people were allowed to sell their
blood. Now, even though the blood supply could be screened for "B"
only at the time, it was well known which populations had higher
incidents of hepatitis: Intravenous drug users who shared needles and
prisoners. An American company was selling blood products to the UK
obtained from large numbers of donors selling blood from a population
known to have a high incidence of hepatitis. Were they even checking
for external signs of disease like jaundice?
 
None of the stories I heard explained why the UK couldn't do blood
donation campaigns of its own to increase the domestic blood supply.
 
For years, NHS had become aware of the tainted blood supply but kept
using it. It knew patients had been infected, even specific patients,
but the information was not disclosed. Medical records were hidden or
destroyed. On one radio interview, one woman found out because she'd
gotten to the hospital early for surgery (typical check in times are
before dawn) but lay on a gurney for hours without explanation. As she
was being anaesthetized, the doctor told her they worked on her last
due to the hepatitis "C" infection, then put her under. Fortunately
she remembered and in recovery, she grabbed a nurse and demanded a
full explanation.
 
Then it got worse. The AIDS crisis hit in the 1980s, and the blood
supply was being obtained from gay men with multiple partners and
risky sexual behavior, some of whom were also IV drug users sharing
needles. Now there was a risk of the blood supply being contaminated
with HIV as well.
 
It is believed that more than 30,000 patients were infected from the
tainted blood products of whom close to 3,000 died of these illnesses.
 
I cannot emphasize enough that once it became known that this was a
bad blood product from those at high risk of blood-borne disease
selling blood, these infections from transfusions were 100%
avoidable. Instead, the NHS knowingly continued to use this bad
product, lied to patients, destroyed records, and just generally
covered up.
 
Some compensation will become available but without records, I doubt
all patients will be adequately compensated.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-69022726
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgxx8yz150ko
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68845141.amp

It's truly appalling when shit like this happens. How is it that the
people administering these system, once they become aware of the
issues, don't do the right thing? And worse, how is it that they
are allowed to keep doing the wrong thing for months or years
and still get away with it even after the facts come out?

Clearly, no blood should be allowed in the public blood supply unless it is known
to be safe - and not just because a donor gives a pinky swear that he
is not gay and promiscuous or an IV drug user. Every possible test
should be used to verify that the blood is actually free of disease or
contaminants. If that means the blood supply is lower than is
desireable, then more blood donor clinics need to be held to get more
donations.

There may still be problems if such a policy is followed - perhaps
there simply aren't enough donors, for example - but creative and moral
people will find a way to solve these problems in a moral way. They
WON'T simply keep giving known or probable tainted blood to hospital
patients and covering it up.

--
Rhino