It has become evident that there are fundamental differences between circumstances leading
up to the infections, and decisions taken by the authorities which resulted in those infections.
We believe that the understanding of these differences is vital if a fair settlement is to be
achieved for all. As we see it, the differences are as follows:
Haemophiliacs became infected
through multiple injections of
blood product (Factor Vlll &
Factor lX), given on a regular
basis – often daily.
Blood products for haemophiliacs were
made from pooled donors.
It is a widely accepted fact that
haemophiliacs’ infections were as a direct
result of their NHS treatment with blood
products.
Culpability. The history of the
contaminated blood tragedy regarding
haemophiliacs is well documented, and it
is clear from that documentation that
there is a significant issue of culpability.
Warnings were ignored, the Medicines
Act was ignored and previous
governments hid behind Crown Immunity
for twenty three years (1968-1991) in
order to circumnavigate the reach and
protection of the Act.
Because the Government made the
decision to cut back on production of
Cryoprecipitate there was no alternative
to treatment but Factor Vlll and Factor
lX. The haemophilia community were
put in a position where they had no
choice but to use the available product,
and were not properly informed of the
risks that were well known and
documented. In the case of mild to
moderate haemophiliacs, treatment with
blood products was not necessarily
Whole blood infections were
usually as a result of a one-off
transfusion.
Blood transfusions in the UK were, and
are, from one single, donor
In the case of an infection from whole
blood, it is more difficult to satisfy the
burden of proof. It therefore falls on an
individual to prove that their infection is
the result of one particular, contaminated
transfusion of whole blood. They will
also be required to provide proof that
their infection is not as a result of such
things as recreational drug taking and
tattoos, for example. In some countries
such as Canada, people who have had
tattoos are automatically rejected from
any compensation scheme.
It is far harder to prove negligence in the
case of whole blood infection. As we
understand it, whole blood transfusions
do not fall under the scope of the
Medicines Act, and therefore there is no
comparable violation of law.
For a person requiring blood transfusion
there is no other alternative. It would be
therefore likely to be classed as lifesaving treatment.
deemed to be life support therapy.
The number of people affected/infected
within the haemophilia community is
finite.
Regarding Hepatitis C, approximately
97% of UK haemophiliacs were infected.
Many thousands of donations, often paid
for from commercial sources, were
imported and used for haemophila
treatment.
@CampaignTB
#waitingforpenrose
© TaintedBlood.info
No-one knows how many infections there
are from whole blood. This will only be
proved by an extensive, expensive, lookback exercise.
In the case of whole blood, the infection
rate is believed to be much smaller – we
have heard that it is only 1 in 1,000.
Each transfusion of whole blood comes
from a single donor and is donated
altruistically (i.e. unpaid/as a gift).