Infected blood scandal: Boy, 7, died from Aids after doctor ignored rules
Infected blood scandal: Boy, 7, died from Aids after doctor ignored rules BBC
sdgtalks
When 10-month-old Colin Smith contracted HIV after receiving contaminated blood, his parents’ house was daubed with “Aids dead”.
His father was also forced to leave his job.
Now 34 years on from his death from Aids at the age of seven, his family are facing another injustice.
A BBC investigation has found Prof Arthur Bloom, the doctor who gave Colin infected imported blood product Factor VIII, broke his own rules to do so.
Just three months earlier, Prof Bloom’s own department had written internal NHS guidelines discouraging the use of imported blood treatments on children because of the risk of infection.
“This wasn’t an accident,” said Colin’s father, also called Colin. “It could have been avoided.”
His son, who was being treated for haemophilia – a rare condition that affects the blood’s ability to clot – was one of more than 3,000 people to die in the UK after being given infected blood products.
Parents Janet and Colin, from Newport, have fought for more than 40 years for answers and hope the infected blood inquiry, which is due to report its findings next month, will provide a measure of closure.
Why did the infected blood scandal happen?
The scandal has been called the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history and decades on victims are still campaigning for compensation.
In the 1970s, the UK was struggling to meet the demand for blood-clotting treatments, so imported supplies from the US.
But much of the blood was bought from high-risk donors such as prison inmates and drug-users.
Factor VIII was made by pooling plasma from blood from tens of thousands of donors. But if just one person was carrying a virus, the entire batch could be contaminated.
In 1975, several years before the first known cases of HIV, a documentary exposed the risks of imported blood products from the US being infected with viruses and the government pledged to become self-sufficient in the UK.
Prof Edward Tuddenham, who was treating haemophiliacs at this time, said it was understood the products were risky.
“[Health minister] David Owen had announced the government policy for self-sufficiency which was the World Health Organisation recommendation, but that quietly got dropped,” he said.
“It was cheaper to import from America. It was clear that there was hepatitis being transmitted and that was apparent by the late seventies.”
He added: “At the end of the day, the bottom line is what matters. And they [drugs companies] had a product that they were making a lot of money from.
“So, there was a natural tendency to wish to carry on pushing that even as the risk became more and more obvious.”
The UK-wide infected blood inquiry was announced in 2017 after years of campaigning by victims. It was led by former judge Sir Brian Langstaff, and took evidence between 2019 and 2023.
The inquiry will publish its report on 20 May.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
- SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
- SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
- SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
- SDG 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.
- SDG 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
- SDG 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
- Indicator for SDG 3.8: Proportion of population with access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines on a sustainable basis.
- Indicator for SDG 10.2: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, disaggregated by age, sex, and disability status.
- Indicator for SDG 16.6: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services.
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being | SDG 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. | Proportion of population with access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines on a sustainable basis. |
| SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities | SDG 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. | Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, disaggregated by age, sex, and disability status. |
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions | SDG 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. | Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services. |
Note: The specific indicators mentioned in the article are implied based on the issues discussed and may not be explicitly stated.
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: bbc.co.uk
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
