Britain Covered Up Tainted Blood Scandal That Killed Thousands, Report Finds (upi.com) 78
UPI reports that the British government covered up "a multi-decade tainted blood scandal, leading to thousands of related deaths, a report published Monday found."
Britain's National Health Service allowed blood tainted with HIV and Hepatitis to be used on patients without their knowledge, leading to 3,000 deaths and more than 30,000 infections, according to the 2,527-page final report by Justice Brian Justice Langstaff, a former judge on the High Court of England and Wales. Langstaff oversaw a five-year investigation into the use of tainted blood and blood products in Britain's healthcare system between 1970 and 1991. The report blames multiple administrations over the time period for knowingly exposing victims to unacceptable risks...
In several cases, health officials lied about the risks to patients... The NHS also gave patients false reassurances, an attempt to "save face," failing victims "not once but repeatedly...." The situation could "largely, though not entirely, have been avoided," Langstaff found...
The British government on Monday began operating a support phone line for people and their families affected by the tainted blood scandal.
The article notes that Langstaff described the coverup as "subtle" but "pervasive" and "chilling in its implications...
"To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
In several cases, health officials lied about the risks to patients... The NHS also gave patients false reassurances, an attempt to "save face," failing victims "not once but repeatedly...." The situation could "largely, though not entirely, have been avoided," Langstaff found...
The British government on Monday began operating a support phone line for people and their families affected by the tainted blood scandal.
The article notes that Langstaff described the coverup as "subtle" but "pervasive" and "chilling in its implications...
"To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
Phew (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad that's over with, and now we can trust governments to not purposefully poison and kill us. Now shut up and do what they tell you, because all that crazy stuff is in the past and everything is fixed now.
Re: Phew (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t forget also having an environmental agency not responding to FOI requests, because they were embarrassed. So after all the finger pointing towards the EU, they have come to realise the smell was coming from their own underwear.
Re: Phew (Score:1)
You say that the US did the same in government healthcare programs and the problem is not the government healthcare programs that are incentivized by the government to do this. Any commercial healthcare program that did this in the US would have been sued and paid the victims, even Red Cross has some asinine blood supply standards because itâ(TM)s not a government entity and cannot rely on the taxpayer for a bailout.
Re: (Score:3)
So your attempt at turning this into some idiot critique of government powers is just fucking dumb
Demands for transparency and holding leadership accountable is precisely what we're supposed to do in situations like this.
Government, be in the UK or US, exists to represent the interests of the people. Hiding mistakes and letting death and injury go out for literally decades is a slap in the face. We shouldn't automatically trust the government, that's an appeal to authority, we should expect transparency and proof that large government programs are safe, effective, and spending tax dollars wisely.
Not only UK (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
tainted blood (Score:5, Funny)
Once I ran to you
Now, I'll run from you
This tainted blood you've given
I give you all a boy could give
Take my tears and that's not nearly all
Oh, tainted blood
Tainted Blood
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Glad to see that song getting updated every 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy bleep, I never knew until now that that song was a cover [youtube.com].
And that's before you get to the really weird covers like this one [youtube.com], or this one [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The NHS was viewed very positively until recently. It was a point of pride for the Brits. IIRC the covid response caused problems with wait times and caused of bit of a blemish on that stellar reputation, but I don't know what the current situation is.
Re:This is exactly why (Score:4, Interesting)
The NHS was world-leading until 2010, at which point the Tories took over and spent the last 14 years fucking it over. They strategically weakened it from 2010 through to 2019 with mad reforms -- I will never stop despising that wrecker Andrew Lansley who decimated the NHS's leadership structure and people -- and starving it of funding especially capital investment. Waiting lists were already at an appalling high before the pandemic struck, and the government was fucking thrilled to be able to sell a story that the failure was all down to covid. It worked for the sour elderly bastards who actually use the NHS more than anyone else, but it didn't convince the rest of the population, which is why the Tories are on 9% support among the under 25s and don't have a majority of support among anyone except the over 65s.
Re: This is exactly why (Score:3)
why the Tories are on 9% support among the under 25s
And given that Rishi Rich has just proposed the reintroduction of conscription it's about to drop to 0%. At this point it's starting to look like he's seen the polls but still wants to make absolutely, positively sure that he will be in Santa Monica by the end of the year.
Re: (Score:3)
John Pilger outlined some of the corrupt shenanegans, carried out undemocratically & in secret that have led to the state the
Re: (Score:2)
Hi there. I wrote a long reply to Bongo just below that sets out my views on what the issues are, and why I don't think the underlying cause of the problems was privatisation.
One thing that I forgot to say in that reply was this: we forget now, but in 2010 when New Labour were booted out, the NHS was in its best ever state: public satisfaction was at a peak never seen before or since, patients routinely saw GPs within 48 hours, and external pan-national benchmarks like the Commonwealth Fund's reports had th
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree, but I gather that the backdoor privatisation has been going on for at least 30 years, both Labour and Tories. At least that's what some doctors have been saying, and I think there's quite a good film about it called the Great NHS Heist.
Re: (Score:2)
This reply is for both you and VeryFluffyBunny, as you both made quite similar points. I should preface by saying that helping health systems, especially (but not only) the NHS has been my professional calling for 25+ years.
You've both, understandably, assumed that when I talked about strategically weakening the NHS and decimating its leadership structure and people, I was talking about part-privatisation. But actually, I wasn't talking about this at all. While it's true that PFI schemes (and diagnostic and
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the great and interesting reply. I'm saving it to read a few times and digest, and I'll look at the stuff you've referenced.
Re: This is exactly why (Score:1)
Really? Thatcher already had to deal with some of the core issues of NHS which was closer to its establishment as we are to Thatcher, fixing NHS was one of the things in her platform she ran on.
Quote: I, along with something like five million other people, insure to enable me to go into hospital on the day I want; at the time I want, and with a doctor I want.
Long wait times, funding and piss-poor service have been a feature since its establishment.
Re: (Score:3)
Thatcher fucked up the NHS, and Major fucked it up further. It then improved rapidly, dramatically and continuously all the way through the New Labour administration, before the Tories fucked it up again.
You talk about waiting lists. You should take a look at when they rose and when they fell, and by how much, under Tory vs Labour administrations. Oh wait, you don’t have to, because the UK’s preeminent business newspaper, which is one of the pillars of the capitalist world, the FT, has done the
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious to see someone modding this as Troll
Re: This is exactly why (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Not that other dictatorial regimes don't capture people and work then to death (see China and North Korea for contemporary examples), but for going out, kidnapping individuals, making them work and taking all the profit you can't beat good old capitalism. It's happening right now in scam call centers all over the world, for example.
Which only leaves one question: how stupid are you?
Re: This is exactly why (Score:4, Insightful)
Slavery. It's a capitalist thing.
It most certainly isn't. As the data on global slavery very very clearly shows [walkfree.org]. See, peddling fabricated Communist bullshit is easy until you run into someone who actually knows anything or has access to a search engine, derp.
Not that other dictatorial regimes don't capture people and work then to death
Forced labor in Chinese prisons, particularly in the context of re-education camps and detention centers, often involves harsher conditions, less pay, and fewer legal protections. Reports of arbitrary detention, severe human rights abuses, and extremely coercive labor practices make the situation in China closer to what is traditionally understood as slavery.
kidnapping individuals, making them work and taking all the profit you can't beat good old capitalism.
Clearly Communist China has the USA beat on this score. However, the prison-industrial-complex definitely needs a good cleanup in the US and anywhere else it's become endemic. This has very little to do with "capitalism" and is simply a corrupt practice that can instantiate itself anywhere there's endemic corruption. Of course, since Socialism and Communism encourage endemic corruption through coercive redistribution, it's much more warmed up to the ideas of coercive labor camps for those who need "reeducation" and such.
It's happening right now in scam call centers all over the world, for example.
Corrupt call centers are mostly in extremely corrupt former colonies where much of the population speaks English, such as in India. So, you're all over the place, here; make up your mind.
Which only leaves one question: how stupid are you?
Well I'm not stupid enough to buy your bullshit response or come back with a counter-insult. You're simply not worth the additional time.
Re: (Score:2)
Is China really all that communist? They have corporations and a stock market for raising capital. I think people need to work harder on their definitions because the 21st century has a lot of gray area now.
For example, Zhong Shanshan is worth $60B now, and there are still people who make less than $100 a month in rural China. It's a nation that is ran by a single political party that maybe once had communist ideals, but they don't appear to be busting up the class system and have add additional capitalisti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of blame to go round individuals and institutions, which is exactly why attempting to turn this into a critique of socialism is beyond stupid
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The irony being that had they offered even 10 lbs a donation and invested in the local fractionation plants needed for Factor VII, the NHS would have had more than enough local healthy donors from every area. But that would have required monetary investment, effort, and an admittance that centralization was the incorrect plan. Whereas buying frozen products from elsewhere meant no need for significant investment, effort, or admitting their plan to centralize the blood service was a dumbfuck stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but are you seriously arguing that a capitalist group wouldn't have acted the same way?
The only basis that I can see for such a belief is if you believe that capitalists don't engage in regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but are you seriously arguing that a capitalist group wouldn't have acted the same way?
Yes, I will argue that.
Capitalists focus on profit.
3,000 dead at $10M settlement each is $30B. There is no way it would cost more than that to deliver clean blood.
From a shareholder value perspective, it would make no sense for a corporation to engage in this behavior.
Do corporations kill millions by denying them proper insurance coverage? Sure. But that's different because it's profitable.
Let me FTFY (Score:2, Troll)
History tells a different story: Capitalists focus on TODAY's profit.
Some of the worst attrocities ever done by mankind were done in the name of return on shareholder investment. If delivering dirty blood means a higher profit margin today, then many corporations will absolutely do it. Law suits and settlements are a problem for the next board of directors. That's if the malfeasance ever comes to the light of day at all.
Re: (Score:2)
History tells a different story: Capitalists focus on TODAY's profit.
There are many examples of patient capital. Amazon was in business for a decade before turning a steady profit and had a sky-high valuation throughout that entire period. Google, Facebook, and Tesla all invested for the long term and were rewarded by capital markets.
VCs in particular, never invest for the short term.
There are trillions invested in "growth" funds that focus on capital appreciation rather than dividends.
If it were true that capitalists irrationally chase short-term profits, then you could get
Re: (Score:2)
The worst atrocities of mankind have all, bar none, been committed by governments throughout the ages. Private enterprise pales in comparison.
Re:This is exactly why (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall just a few years ago there was a problem in the U.S. with tainted steroids meant for epidural injection. Hundreds got a raging fungal meningitis and dozens died. Here's [asm.org] a link. The whole thing could have been avoided by just cleaning the place once in a while.
That's FAR from the only case, it's just a particularly large one.
Capitalism leads to cut corners for a variety of reasons ranging from "the settlements will be less than the savings once the legal team gets on it" to "that only happens to other companies". This includes "nobody can prove it"
Re: (Score:2)
I recall just a few years ago there was a problem in the U.S. with tainted steroids meant for epidural injection. Hundreds got a raging fungal meningitis and dozens died. Here's [asm.org] a link. The whole thing could have been avoided by just cleaning the place once in a while.
That's FAR from the only case, it's just a particularly large one.
Capitalism leads to cut corners for a variety of reasons ranging from "the settlements will be less than the savings once the legal team gets on it" to "that only happens to other companies". This includes "nobody can prove it"
The thing is, the NHS is somewhat immune from that not being a strictly capitalist organisation, they don't have a mandate to increase capital.
This is the fault of the blame culture of the 1970s and 80s. This pervaded British society (and western society in general) so the emphasis was always placed on not copping the blame, this means it was better to cover it up. Senior NHS staff didn't want to get sacked (especially with how bad the economy was in the 80s), politicians didn't want the bad press. No on
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism leads to cut corners for a variety of reasons ranging from "the settlements will be less than the savings once the legal team gets on it" to "that only happens to other companies".
Why blame Capitalism? It seems that this is an issue of energy and resources and Capitalism does not have a monopoly on how to utilize energy and resources.
Cut corners happen no matter what economic system you model with.
Re: (Score:2)
In other systems, individuals cut corners. In Capitalism, the cut corners are corporate policy.
Re: (Score:2)
The scandal occurred during the '70s and '80s. Please remind me who was in power in the UK during the '80s?
Re:This is exactly why (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, the tainted blood products in question were produced in the US with the blood of homeless people and prisoners, and sold in the US for use in American hospitals, not just exported overseas. The exact same thing as happened in the UK, except all done by commercial organisations. How can you not know this?
Re: (Score:2)
How can you not know this?
Oooh! Oooh! Can I take a guess? Does it involve a hole in the sand? Possibly with a "capitalism can do no wrong" head buried in it? Did I come close?
Re: (Score:2)
Ha. I reckon it's actually a different thing: these guys hate (supposed) socialists so much that they want them to lose more than they care about their own success. Like this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sp... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
But there is also a scenario where these companies, knowing that perhaps, ensuring a high-quality supply, is simply too expensive or too difficult or both, with simply then go to the government and ask for the laws to be changed such that they have complete indemnity, because otherwise these vital products could not be manufactured, due to risk and cost of lawsuits, and would be too unprofitable, because the lawsuits from inevitable mistakes and problems with quality cannot be avoided, so the government wou
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sorry, but are you seriously arguing that a capitalist group wouldn't have acted the same way?"
Apparently not, because a capitalist group DIDN'T at this way, a socialist one did. Sort of like those tourists who circled over and over during the visits in N. Korea and China. Socialists depend on the fairytale that those in leadership are better suited to it and thus need to be in charge to protect everyone from their neighbors [literal neighbors, other political factions, neighboring countries, whatever
Re: (Score:3)
Similar scandals happened at the same time in many countries of the world. There does not seem to be a connection to political affiliation. In some cases it involved government officers, in other cases it involved private companies. A handful served jail time in Japan and in France. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Similar scandals happened at the same time in many countries of the world.
What is outstanding in the UK case is that it took so long to be revealed/p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is exactly why (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. The formal inquiries for both scandals were opened around the same time, but the investigation into the contaminated blood had been purposely held up for 10+ years before that.
Horizon was introduced ca. 2000 and the first article in the press about it was 2005 IIRC, but there were reports about the blood products in the early 80s and to reiterate successive governments refused to open an inquiry.
The main similarity is that in both cases those responsible apparently knew what was happening but carried on anyway. Whether itâ(TM)s a loss of life or liberty this is far more heinous than a simple cover up.
Re: (Score:2)
The main similarity is that in both cases those responsible apparently knew what was happening but carried on anyway. Whether itÃ(TM)s a loss of life or liberty this is far more heinous than a simple cover up.
Something of this nature requires that the entire government be dismantled. An organization working towards its own benefit at the expense of the people who support it? Pure madness to live in such a society.
Re: This is exactly why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This is exactly why (Score:1)
Red Cross in the US wonâ(TM)t accept blood from anyone living in Belgium due to risk of CJD and Hepatitis contamination in government healthcare (blood, vaccines) in the 80s and 90s
Re: This is exactly why (Score:2)
Re:This is exactly why (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly why the socialist governments shouldn't be running these programs.
From TFA:
the use of tainted blood and blood products in Britain's healthcare system between 1970 and 1991
Now, let's see what "sushalists" were in power in these two decades:
1970 - 1974 - Edward Heath, Conservative
1974 - 1979 - Harold Wilson/James Callaghan Labour, most of it in coalition with LibDems
1979 - 1997 - Thatcher and her poster boy, John Major, Conservative
Will you come again about that "sushalism", when was that, trololo?
Re: This is exactly why (Score:1)
And all of them advocated for the privatization of NHS and were held back by the deep state in their time that wanted to keep it established.
Re: (Score:2)
All of them conservatives, sure. I don't think Labor has ever advocated the privatization of the NHS. Not sure about the Liberal party in the 70s, which I wrongly named LibDems - of course they aren't.
Took 'em long enough (Score:2, Troll)
They tried that here in Canada, too, but our courts took care of it in 1997. You know, after years of the Red Cross buying blood from American prisons and giving us Aids and Hep C because they didn't think testing was worth it. But I guess in the UK they're better and cover-ups.
Now we have 'Canadian Blood Services' but it's the new regulation that makes it safer (one hopes) since an awful lot of the original Red Cross staff were migrated to the work under the new name.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Took 'em long enough (Score:2)
Re: Took 'em long enough (Score:1)
Canada health care demanding a service below cost and then surprised that corners get cutâ¦
"Thank U NHS" (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.kimdutoit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nr1202-11-1.jpg [kimdutoit.com]
This, folks, is why you don't let your government run your health-care system.
Re: (Score:2)
So you get things like the opioid catastrophe, i.e. intentional evil instead of just incompetent evil?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As if private healthcare doesn't have even more scandals. Profit motive is far worse than what happened here, which is essentially that nobody wanted to be the one who said the blood was bad so just kept repeating the original assurances they had been given by someone else. There was no great conspiracy, just a systemic lack of responsibility and willingness to correct mistakes.
Reminds me of ... (Score:2)
BAYER Rat Of The Week video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Government reasoning of a 4 year old (Score:1)
Did it before... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Too many morons can't comprehend statistics - every time that episode airs, it's likely creating more anti-vaxxers and eventually new outbreaks and deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's talk again... (Score:2)
...about how awesome nationalized health services are, how they're so much better than that awful American one.