PEOPLE living with haemophilia and other blood clotting disorders in the 1970's and 1980's were already "vulnerable and disadvantaged".
Then, says Scottish sufferer Bill Wright "came this cruel catalyst of contaminated blood" which created confusion, sickness and pain.
Lives were turned upside down and many people died.
Haemophilia, when the blood does not clot because of a protein deficiency, carries a number of risks. Bleeding internally into the brain or gut can be fatal. Bleeding into the joints can cause permanent damage and disability.
But in the first half of the 20th century there was little patients could do to repair their bodies beyond taking bed rest.
When concentrated plasma treatments became available in the 1970s's, made from large pools of donated blood, it was seen a significant step forward. Patients were able to treat themselves and parents inject their children. The Penrose Inquiry report says: "The lifestyle of individuals with haemophilia was greatly improved."
But, the blood products, supplied both by commercial companies in the US and manufactured by the NHS itself, carried blood borne viruses which were not identified until the 1980s: Hepatitis C and HIV.
According to Penrose, 478 people in Scotland were infected with Hepatitis C as a result of therapies for bleeding disorders and 60 contracted HIV.
Alongside them, some patients with other medical conditions who required blood transfusions received donor blood carrying the viruses. Penrose estimates 2500 were infected with Hepatitis C and 18 with HIV.
Could more have been done to prevent the viruses being passed on as understanding of the conditions emerged?
The patients campaigning for answers cite documents which they say show information was available to the medical establishment before action was taken.
Many describe being kept in the dark about contracting the infections, only discovering almost incidentally years later what was wrong with them.
But in the statement which was read on behalf of Lord Penrose, the inquiry chairman, he said: "Careful consideration of the evidence has... revealed few respects in which matters should, or more importantly could, have been handled differently."
Once the risk of HIV emerged, he said, "all that could reasonably be done, was done" to prevent further infections.
For Hepatitis C, however, he did find that there were avoidable delays in screening donor blood for the virus. A decision to start doing this should have been taken in May 1990, he said, and Scotland could have moved more swiftly than the rest of the UK to begin screening before September 1991.
Witnesses told the inquiry collecting blood donations from prisoners was with hindsight "inadvisable." In 1975, 2.38 per cent of blood donated in Scotland came from jails and the practice was not stopped until 1982. But the report stops short of criticising the practice.
As for the way the NHS told patients they had been infected by the treatment which was supposed to improve their lives? Lord Penrose spoke of the "doctor-patient " relationship in the 1980s being different from the one we know today. He put the problem down to a "genuine lack of information as the understanding of the conditions developed" and doctors of that time not being "used to sharing all information available with patients in the way they do today."
In fact he highlighted the suffering of the clinical staff who discovered the treatments they had used were actually threatening lives. One doctors describes "waves of hope, followed by waves of despair." This, said Lord Penrose, is "the stuff of nightmares".
XREF LEADER
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article