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.
 

Did you watch Mr Bates vs The Post Office when it aired on PBS last
month? Just curious....

Yes, this tainted blood issue is horrible. I won't say it's better or
worse than the Post Office scandal because each was destructive in its
own way. It could be argued that being driven to suicide by
reputational damage and financial catastrophe might be worse than
getting sick from tainted blood.

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

We had a tainted blood scandal of our own and it was bad enough that
the Red Cross got out of blood collection entirely; now the new
Canadian Blood Services Agency does blood collection.

After the original scandal died down, the blood supply has not been
heavily discussed but every once in a while, I see articles to the
effect that more of the restrictions against certain blood donors have
been lifted. I haven't followed the details closely but homosexuals
*are* apparently able to give blood now. I'm not clear if their blood
is actually tested for HIV/AIDS though or if they just have to give a
pinky swear that they are not overly promiscuous and don't share IV
needles.

I really need to find out about that because one fine day I
could well end up needing a blood transfusion and I *really* don't
want to get HIV/AIDS!! I know it is not the death sentence it was
initially but I gather the treatment is not particularly pleasant and
goes on for the rest of your life so I really want to avoid all that.

--
Rhino