Infected blood scandal

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

It’s a depressing and tragic mess, but both the NHS and different governments are culpable, and so many lives ruined or cut short.I don’t know why the UK takes so many years to sort out these scandals, even tho complicated there is no will to get on with things.

I was horrified recently to read something written by an American in financial hardship who was selling plasma as often as they could to survive. Selling your blood/plasma in a situation like this is going to continue to put at risk anyone who receives this, if the seller is relying on selling to keep going. When I go along to donate, if there is the slightest hint of anything wrong with me they won't take it in the first place, so I hope now it's safe for anyone. Obviously doesn't help anyone who has suffered from receiving infected blood

Once again, the advice in the Bible is proved to be correct....avoid consuming blood.

Two of my newborn babies received blood transfusions in 1979 and 1983. They seem healthy and well so I’m not concerning myself any further about it, unless I have to.

Dreadful for any of you affected, and hope your results are clear, when they come back.
As there is an election coming soon, why not tell each and every canvasser who comes your way, how disgusted you are with this culture of cover up, and that you want a guarantee of proper transparency from their party. Yes, I know that promises are not always kept, but let them be aware of how you feel. This message will get back to the policy makers, if enough folk make a big fuss.

lizzypopbottle

The NHS and successive governments are, quite rightly, being held to account for this scandal. How callous were those doctors who experimented on innocent boys at Treloars school. But no one seems to mention the unscrupulously greedy US drug companies who happily collected blood from the dregs of American society, prisoners in gaol, male and female prostitutes, drug addicts. They must have known these people were likely to be infected with HIV and/or hepatitis but they sold their contaminated blood products and raked in the profits. Is anyone holding them to account?

Yes absolutely. They must take a lot of the responsibility, but guess they'll be left out of the equation.

Scandal is the right word.

I am lucky enough not to have been directly affected, but my whole family had weeks of worry about my brother who lived and worked in Manhattan. He had numerous heart surgeries as a younger man. Some of the blood used on him came from criminals and drug users who were paid for giving blood. David was unaware of this. Eventually he had to be tested to see if he had contracted any deadly diseases. I remember the long wait and what it did to us all, particularly my mother. He was ok, fortunately, but thousands of other patients weren't.

Doctors said I probably should have had a blood transfusion after the birth of my second child. I am so glad that I didn't.

The NHS and successive governments are, quite rightly, being held to account for this scandal. How callous were those doctors who experimented on innocent boys at Treloars school. But no one seems to mention the unscrupulously greedy US drug companies who happily collected blood from the dregs of American society, prisoners in gaol, male and female prostitutes, drug addicts. They must have known these people were likely to be infected with HIV and/or hepatitis but they sold their contaminated blood products and raked in the profits. Is anyone holding them to account?

French doctors often ask for blood tests which are carried out in the local medical laboratory. When the infected blood was first know about in France people were ask to tell the receptionist if they had had any blood intervention in the UK. France was also touched by this criminal act ”an estimated 4,000 people, many of whom were haemophiliacs, were given blood infected with HIV in 1985. The former prime minister Laurent Fabius and two of his ministers were charged with manslaughter. In 1999, Fabius and one minister were acquitted – the other minister was found guilty but freed”

I don't think Zantac could have given you Hep C. It may have caused you to have hepatitis, but Hepatitis C is a very specific blood-borne virus.

My hubby was a nurse during this period and often wonders if he, unknowingly, administered infected blood to anyone. It really bothers him.

I worked in a laboratory making blood products from 1979 to 1989. Our blood plasma came from the UK Blood Transfusion Service but in the early years there were no tests available for HIV - the virus was still to be identified. Once there were tests, all donations were tested before being released for use. Although some donations in the UK may have resulted in infections, the majority of problems came from products made in the US where donors are paid to donate blood.

Despite having a significant amount of knowledge of the subject I have been shocked by some of the revelations coming out of the inquiry, particularly the testing of new products without patient consent and the continued use of US made products once the risks were known.

I still remember working overtime at weekends before tests were available as we were retrospectively heat treating all our stock of products in the hope of destroying any possible contamination with HIV. I'm pretty sure that we did everything we could to safeguard the recipients of our products and tested everything as soon as relevant tests were available.

When the scandal was first in the news my DD asked me if I was in any way guilty, having worked in this field, but I was confident that we had done everything we could within the limits of the knowledge we had at the time. Sadly this was not true of every organisation and the inquiry has reveaed much malpractice as well as attempts to cover up the truth.

I was a regular blood doner before working in that field and after working there I stopped donating as I often gave donations at work to use to make reagents used for testing our products. After I left I had a family and later went back to offer to give blood. I was shocked by the increase in the form filling necessary to be a donor, though not by the amount of tests now carried out on donations. I no longer am able to give blood due to the medication I am on but I think that thankfully receiving a blood transfusion in the UK is now very low risk.

I have never received or needed a transfusion but was prescribed Zantac for a suspected stomach ulcer. My consultant wanted to see me urgently sometime later and it transpired the Zantac, now available over the counter, had given me Hepatitis C. I was on large amounts of antibiotics and quite a long time (cant remember).
How our lives are gambled with!

\Maybe people will stop treating the NHS as a religion which cannot be criticised, and be far more sceptical.
People seem to be blaming the Government more than the NHS,.

I can't imagine anybody was happy to use infected blood.

It's so desperately sad for those affected.

I have never been able to donate blood since starting to take drugs for epilepsy in the late 60s. Strange that they were aware then of the harm the barbiturates in my blood could cause but were happy to use blood infected with Hep C.

I had a blood transfusion in 1978, after the birth of my first child. I was a blood donor before becoming pregnant and once I was able to, I started donating again without any problems.

During the last few weeks of my second pregnancy, I was summoned to see my GP as a blood test revealed that I had anti Kell antibodies in my blood. I must admit, I hadn't a clue what it was but my GP did his best to explain it.
(Google it if you're interested.)
My husband had to get his blood tested to see if his was Kell positive. If it was, it was probably the reason why I had the antibodies.
Baby number 1 inherited his blood group and there was a transfer of baby's blood to mine. This could have caused serious complications to any future babies I might have.

It turned out that he had the same blood group as me, so the cause of my developing the antibodies must have been from the transfusion I had in 1978.
Two days later I went into labour 10 days early, still waiting for the results of my husband's blood test and me fearful of delivering a stillborn child.

All went well, thankfully, though baby number 2 had jaundice.
Once again, I returned to donating my blood when I could, but this time my donor card was stamped indicating that I had antibodies in my blood.
I remained a donor up until my 50s. I just assumed that the transfusion service tested my blood. Now I'm not so sure.

I was a nurse working on a haemophilia clinic in the 1980s. A lot of the patients tested positive to A.I.D.S. They had been given infected blood product as their treatment.

An awful example of yet another cover up by government and the NHS. The NHS has nothing to be proud of in harassing whistleblowers in recent times. And government has nothing to be proud of in colluding with the Post Office in the disgraceful prosecutions of postmasters. Why is it that preserving reputations and brands is so much more important than treating victims fairly and why is saving money on compensation by denial, delay and offering far less (as in the case of Mr Bates) than the true losses sustained so obviously a government strategy?

PamelaJ1

HPQ
It sort of is news to me. Of course I have known about haemophiliacs being infected and, very sadly, sometimes infecting others. I hadn’t realised so many others were given infected blood.

Perhaps I am aware of it because many years ago, a friend of my late Father was advised to have a test for Hepatitis as he had received multiple blood transfusions after emergency surgery. This was around 40 years ago.

HPQ
It sort of is news to me. Of course I have known about haemophiliacs being infected and, very sadly, sometimes infecting others. I hadn’t realised so many others were given infected blood.

No it's not news, it is acknowledgement, finally, that terrible things happened and were covered up.

I knew about it before I had my son in 1985. It’s not news.

I am surprised this is now considered “news”. I have known about it for years and years. When I went to donate blood I was told I could not because I had received a blood transfusion within the time period when there were big questions over the quality of the blood as it came from dubious sources.