What is the NHS contaminated blood scandal and how did it happen?

What is the tainted blood scandal?

From 1970 to the 1990s, people treated by the NHS in Britain were exposed to contaminated blood through transfusions, including during complications of childbirth, or, in the case of haemophiliacs, through contaminated ‘factor VIII’ blood products imported from the US. The study previously estimated that more than 30,000 people were infected with HIV, hepatitis C or – in the case of 1,250 haemophiliacs – both. Most hep C infections (26,800) occurred in transfusion recipients. The HIV-infected children included 380 children. By the end of 2019, an estimated 2,900 people had died due to infection.

How did this happen?

People became infected through blood transfusions because donated blood was not screened for HIV until 1986 and not tested for Hepatitis C until 1991.

Blood products for hemophiliacs were imported from the US, where people were paid to donate blood, leading to people at high risk of infections donating, such as drug addicts and prisoners. Again the blood was not screened. Donations were mixed together, increasing the chance that a virus would contaminate many batches of factor concentrate.

Were the authorities too slow to act?

There is ample evidence, much of which was heard during the investigation, that ample warning was given of the dangers arising from the lack of screening and importation of products from the US before action was taken to address the risk.

In 1974, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned Britain not to import blood from countries with a high prevalence of hepatitis, such as the US. In 1982, a warning was issued about the risk of contracting HIV from blood products and the following year the Lancet and WHO said haemophiliacs should be informed of the dangers.

Warnings were also communicated directly to the government, including a letter sent to the Department of Health by Dr Spence Galbraith of the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1983, which stated: “I have reviewed the literature and have concluded that all blood products made from blood donated in the US after 1978 should be withdrawn from use until the risk of AIDS transmission from these products is clarified. The advice was never followed.

In an interim report, the inquiry’s chairman, Sir Brian Langstaff, said ‘mistakes have been made at individual, collective and systemic levels’.

Has anyone received compensation?

Before the investigation began, only ex gratia payments had been made through various schemes and trusts, the first of which was established in 1987. In 2017, the same year the investigation was launched, these were replaced by new support schemes for each of the four home countries. In 2022, the government agreed to pay £100,000 each in interim compensation to people infected and survivors registered under the support schemes, on Langstaff’s recommendation.

The following year, Langstaff said parents and children bereaved as a result of the tainted blood scandal should also receive interim compensation payments of £100,000. He also said the compensation scheme, which would determine the total amount each person would ultimately receive, should be set up as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the investigation’s final report. However, none of these recommendations have been implemented, with the government insisting it will only consider them after the final report is published, angering campaigners.

Who provided evidence during the investigation?

The investigation heard moving testimonies from infected and affected people as well as donors. Doctors, civil servants and politicians also gave evidence, the latter often irritating the public. John Major said those affected were “incredibly unlucky”, Ken Clarke called some of the questions “pretty pointless”, while Rishi Sunak was heckled when he defended the failure to set up a compensation scheme as directed by Langstaff. In contrast, Andy Burnham, the former health secretary and now mayor of Manchester, was applauded when he suggested there might be a case for corporate manslaughter charges.