blood transfusion....................

Children aged from 15 to just 3 months old were given blood riddled with HIV and deadly hepatitis The Sun reported today. Docs gave hemophiliac children factor 8 from the blood to help clotting from prisoners who had not been tested.

However, it happened in the late 70s and 80s when there was no way of testing for HIV or Hep C. Should the docs be punished? :?: :?:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007180212,00.html

 

If there was no way of testing why should the doctors be punished?
Yes its a terrible thing that these people have grown up to find that they have hepatitis or are HIV positive. However we now have anti viral drugs to help control these. If the children had not been given the anti clotting drugs how many of them would still be alive today?

 

Thisis one that has been rumbling on for ages. Punishing people though is not the real problem but there are many oustanding claims for compensation.

Yes there was not test at the time but the UK did buy the products from the lowest cost suppliers in the US when it was already known that the very people who were most likely to be infected were the main donors.

Perhaps the duty of care was not exercised to quite the standards the man on the Clapham Omnibus might have expected.

 

well i was one of those kids that got factor 8..... probably saved my life...
so im not going to wory about it,,,
the only time it ever gave me any problems was when i had my c sections.
the labour ward were agog because they might have a bleedder... it was embarresing enougth to be naked on a table without the extra dozen or so
vulterus hoping to see me bleed.............well looking back i can see the funny side but at the time i was well embarressed....lol

 

If there was no way that the blood contamination could be determined at that time, then the blood transfusions were given in good faith - to have not given the transfusion would have been contrary to best practice at the time and the doctors would have been open to charges of negligence; no they shouldn't be punished - they are probably already living with the awareness of the inadvertent consequence of their actions. If however, they knew that the blood was contaminated and gave the transfusion anyway then crack on with the lawyers!

 

Can't see the problem - they did what they had to do using the best knowledge available at the time, no crime (or otherwise to answer to) Case dismissed, next!

Maxi ain't just done a Safety Course have we?

 

The problem is not so much related to transfusions which were made using blood collected in the UK from screened volunteers, this in general relates to blood products, generally factor 8 used for treatment of haemophiliacs. At the time this was being bought on a lowest cost supplier basis from the USA with no checking on whether the donors were being screened, and they were not, they were in fact buying the blood from the poor such as drug addicts etc, the high risk part of the population. The French have charged several peole over just the same basic problem.

 

So the people doing the purchasing were negligent by not adopting due diligence assuming of course that such screeening would have been part of contemporary due diligence. I don;t beleive that the front-line medical staff responsible for the transfusions cannot be held solely responsible which is the tone implied in the Scum article quoted originally.

 

It's a bit like say the descendents of Nelson's surgeon should apologise for not saving his life. (Assuming Tony Blair hasn't saved them the task). You do the best you can, as cheaply as you can so you can help as many as you can. Hindsight was not available at the time.

 

Perhaps in this case it is not the medical staff who should be held responsible but the procurement department of the health service for not ensuring supplies were correctly sourced.