The last time I was supposed to file this column I was not at my desk - I was at the launch of the findings of a public inquiry.
For a few days beforehand there had been a flurry of stories about the plight of patients infected with nasty conditions such as Hepatitis C and HIV by NHS treatments made from donated blood.
Then the report investigating this "scandal" was published, and I was there along with journalists and TV crews from across the UK. It was an emotional event. The audience included many families who had had to cope (some repeatedly) with the illness and death spread by the use of contaminated blood. They listened in silence as the statement of inquiry chair Lord Penrose was read out, but as it reached its conclusion there were cries of whitewash. A widow from England walked out in disgust, Bill Wright, chair of Haemophilia Scotland and a victim himself, took to the stage to plead with people to stay, promising he shared their frustration but all hope was not lost.
People expressed their anger with the findings in different ways - the drama of burning the five-volume report behind the National Museum of Scotland was not for everyone - but the disappointment
was shared.
How could this be the culmination of an investigation which had cost £12m and taken six years?
To some extent, this inquiry was never going to deliver justice. Imagine having a blood clotting disorder, then developing new symptoms, such as sickness and constant fatigue, but doctors knowing little about what is wrong. Then, at length, imagine finding you have a virus associated with drug addicts and watching your friends die because they were similarly infected while the rest of the world carries on like nothing has happened. This is massively disempowering and Penrose could not give people back their health or control over their own lives.
But, his statement and the summary of his findings - about the maximum text people could digest on publication day - lacked real empathy which heightened the frustration.
For example, for patients not being informed about their infections was very significant and distressing - but the chairman's statement seems to dismiss this in a paragraph. It says times were different in the 1970s and 80s and doctors were not used to telling patients everything. Even if this generalisation is true, it does not make it OK. It warranted criticism.
Furthermore, while the report acknowledges the impact on patients was "devastating" the next sentence talks about the "forgotten suffering" of the medical staff as though it were of similar magnitude. While it was right to acknowledge their distress at finding treatments they administered made people ill - the emphasis felt wrong.
The repeated use of the word "unfortunate" in Lord Penrose's narrative to describe delays and misjudgements which caused more family tragedies is also unfortunate.
However, in the quiet which followed the noise of that launch, Scottish politicians have promised to review the compensation given to families. In the discussions and decisions that this will involve there is a last chance for Penrose to make a difference and empower
those living daily with the consequences of treatments made from contaminated blood.
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