Infected blood victims facing ‘new layer of psychological pain' amid compensation failings, damning report finds
A report into the compensation of victims and others affected by the scandal found that they have been ignored, branding the British state's apology meaningless unless they are given greater involvement.
Sir Brian Langstaff, chairman of the official inquiry into the infected blood scandal, said: 'Decisions have been made behind closed doors leading to obvious injustices.'
Publishing a report into failings in the government's compensation for victims, Sir Brian said: 'The government has known for years that compensation for thousands of people was inevitable and had identified many of those who should have had it.
'But only 460 have received compensation so far and many, many more have not even been allowed to begin the process.'
He called for the compensation scheme to be sped up, with greater access offered to those affected by the scandal.
In a devastating piece of evidence, which Sir Brian concluded was 'fully justified', the infected blood inquiry was told how victims have faced 'a new and different layer of psychological pain'.
Andrew Evans, from the campaign group Tainted Blood and who was infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products during treatment for haemophilia as a child, repeated the testimony of another who said it had been 'another layer I have had to endure, adapt to and fight every day to not let it take over my life'.
They said: 'I have spent more than 30 years fighting trauma, exclusion and the constant struggle to keep my life together.
'I have fought every day to keep the darkest thoughts from consuming me. What has happened since the compensation scheme was announced has pushed that fight to its absolute limit and now I am utterly exhausted… the anguish is beyond words.'
Mr Evans said victims have felt 'nothing but despair' and have 'lost all hope of ever fetting justice'.
Victims described being 'left feeling age and illness catching up with us' while waiting for compensation, adding that 'there is no rest, there is no peace'.
Others said it 'feels as if we are waiting to die, in limbo, unable to make any progress in our lives and fearing as our health declines we may not ever get the compensation awards we deserve'.
And, speaking to The Independent, Jackie Wrixton said that she hoped the report would force the government to 'pull their finger out' and speed up the compensation, given the high rate of deaths among those infected.
The 63-year-old was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 2010 after four decades of ill health, after receiving a blood transfusion following childbirth in 1983.
'The euphoria we had a year ago has dissipated and now we're having to demonstrate,' she said. 'The recommendations are really powerful but they just don't seem to have the teeth we need to get the government to act.
'We have all of the platitude but none of the action. They say they're working at pace, it's just pulled and drawn out at every opportunity by every MP, but we are dying at pace. We are still not getting the coverage we need to get the public to understand what's happening.'
Of the tens of thousands the inquiry believed were infected, and the many more affected by the scandal, just 460 have so far received compensation - totalling £326m. Some 616 have received an offer of compensation, the latest figures show, while 2,043 have been asked to start compensation claims.
The report set out a series of recommendations to speed up compensation and improve fairness, which included:
Allowing infected and affected people to apply for compensation, rather than having to wait to be asked.
Progressing applications from those move seriously ill, who are older or who have not received compensation faster.
End the injustice of people infected with HIV before 1982 being excluded from compensation.
Drop unrealistic evidence requirements for those who suffered severe psychological harm.
Rishi Sunak last May promised the government 'will pay comprehensive compensation to those infected and affected by this scandal… whatever it costs'.
But, having set out little detail of how the compensation scheme would work, the former PM called a general election two days later. The report found that the snap general election meant the establishment of the compensation scheme was rushed to meet an August deadline.
The infected blood inquiry had recommended that there should be two panels advising the chair and board of the compensation scheme, one of medical experts and one of lawyers. But the government appointed an expert group which the inquiry deemed did not contain 'the full range of expertise recommended', with no psychological expertise, no clinician specialising in bleeding disorders and no transfusion specialist.
The inquiry also criticised the group for being unable to meet with infected and affected people.
The inquiry's report on Wednesday highlighted that people set to benefit from the compensation scheme should have had a central role in its decision-making and operation.
But the day after it was announced, it was revealed the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (IBCA) had been established with no direct involvement from those affected.
The report highlighted that the government has apologised on behalf of the British state for the infected blood treatment disaster. 'That apology will only be meaningful if the government demonstrates it is willing to listen to people, sooner rather than later, and to act when it has made a mistake,' it found.
It added: 'Truly involving people infected and affected in how the state recognises their losses would start to turn the page on the past.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ultra-processed baby foods ‘set children up for lifetime of obesity,' experts warn
Ultra-processed baby foods that 'set children up for a lifetime of obesity ' are 'dominating' supermarket shelves, experts have warned. A study by researchers at the University of Leeds found that one in three baby food products filling the aisles are classed as ultra-processed foods (UPF), which have been linked to long-term health damage. Researchers have also warned parents over 'misleading' packaging which promotes natural ingredients in a food product that is industrially produced. The team analysed 600 baby food items from major brands and found that a staggering 87 per cent of baby snacks and 79 per cent of baby cereals are classed as UPFs. This means they were made using industrial techniques, with ingredients not typically found in home cooking. They also found 'troubling trends' in popular snacks marketed at infants, including 'melty' puffed snacks and fruit-based chews and bars. The study's authors are now calling on the government to introduce tougher regulations on UPFs, saying the foods on offer 'bear little resemblance to the kind of food young children should be growing up on'. Dr Diane Threapleton, lead researcher and paediatric nutrition expert at the University of Leeds said: 'We're seeing highly processed snacks, sweets, cereals - even meals dominating the baby aisle. These are often marketed as healthy, organic, or with 'no added sugar' claims, but they contain ingredients and undergo processing that bear little resemblance to the kind of food young children should be growing up on. 'These products are setting up babies to crave ultra-processed, overly sweet foods from the very start. There's a real opportunity now for the Government to show it's serious about raising a healthier generation. The current state of the baby food aisle is unacceptable, and it must no longer be ignored.' Their work is backed by the Obesity Health Alliance (OHA), who said the government needs to act 'urgently' to clamp down on the sale of sugary snacks with 'misleading' labelling. The director of the OHA, Katharine Jenner, said: 'The Government's 10-Year Health Plan talks of a moonshot to end obesity, but we'll never get off the launchpad unless we close the gap in our early years. A healthy life starts from the very beginning and right now, we're feeding our babies and toddlers ultra-processed foods that undermine their development and long-term health. 'The baby food aisle is flooded with sugary, ultra-processed snacks that set children up for a lifetime of poor eating habits, obesity, and tooth decay. With the UK in the grip of an oral health crisis, we urgently need government to limit baby food companies from selling high sugar foods with misleading labelling.' She added: 'These products undermine the best intentions of parents and carers, who want to put their child's health first.'
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Woman dying of cancer sent to osteopath by her mum, inquest told
An osteopath who saw Paloma Shemirani shortly before her death has told her inquest he had "never seen anything like" her case in 43 years of 23, who had declined chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, suffered a fatal heart attack caused by her tumour at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in July last day before, she visited Nick Gosset on the instructions of her mother Kate, a prominent online Covid conspiracy theorist who had been involved in her "treatment programme". Mr Gosset told the hearing in Maidstone that he felt "deeply aggrieved" he had been put in a professional position of trying to treat Paloma when there was clear advice from her GP to go to A&E. He told the hearing on Wednesday that Paloma, a Cambridge graduate who was originally from Uckfield, East Sussex, had come to him complaining about shortness of breath and that he could only offer her palliative treatment at that stage as she was "clearly very ill"."My understanding was this was an advanced disease process that she was no longer winning," he said."It was obvious to me I was not the right person to be treating her and I made it very clear there were more qualified agencies that would (help her)."She was very upset by that."Mr Gosset said that any referral to a GP was "refused" and all suggestions of going through "normal medical channels" were "dismissed". He explained he would have offered to treat her again in the vain hope of possibly persuading her to seek help elsewhere, adding he had been "horrified" to learn she had subsequently died. Also at the inquest was Linda Scotson who said she was qualified in hyperbaric oxygen said Paloma had not been sure she had cancer and was aiming to "improve her immediate quality of life", after which she had claimed to feel "better in herself".Asked by Kate Shemirani if she had seen others in Paloma's situation coming to her centre, Ms Scotson replied: "We have people with a whole variety of problems, such as ME, Long Covid, sprains and fractures. "It's amazing what a little extra oxygen can do for the body. You are lifting stress."Paloma's twin brother Gabriel asked her: "Did you explicitly tell her this will not treat her cancer?" Ms Scotson said: "She knew it wasn't treating her cancer in a direct way. I was treating her whole body and her wellbeing."When asked by Gabriel if she had left it "deliberately vague", she replied: "I never said I was treating her cancer and she wasn't certain that she had cancer."The inquest continues.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
My message to doctors, after five days of strikes? Work with us: if you go to war with us, you'll lose
As five days of strike action by resident doctors come to an end, the BMA has written asking me to return to the negotiating table. I've responded, with the irony of their letter being that I never left the table. We are back to where we were two weeks ago, when I sat down in good faith and offered to work intensively with them over a few weeks to negotiate a package of measures that would make a real difference in meeting the costs of doctors' training, the costs associated with being a doctor and the lack of promotion opportunities. The only difference between now and a fortnight ago is the damage that the BMA has done to the NHS through its reckless strike action. Thanks to the hard work of NHS leaders and the heroic efforts of frontline staff who stepped up, including many resident doctors who showed up for work, the disruption was not as bad as it might have been. We managed to protect more operations and procedures than in previous years, and our accident and emergency response times improved during the period of strike action. But I do not want for a moment to play down the real impact of strike action on patients. The BMA has made no bones about the fact that it wanted to do damage to the progress we are making on cutting waiting lists and waiting times, and use the suffering of patients as leverage against the government. It cannot duck the consequences of its actions now. On Saturday, I spoke to a patient whose kidney cancer surgery has been postponed by a month until the end of August. I rang him personally to apologise because, having been through kidney cancer myself, I know exactly how it feels to wait, and the impact the fear and anxiety has on our families and close friends. It was just one of countless examples of cancer care that was affected, not to mention many other operations, appointments and procedures. We are still counting the costs of strike action on patients and stretched NHS budgets – budgets that doctors are relying on to deliver real improvements to their working conditions, as well as to patient care. Doctors are not the only staff I am responsible for in the NHS. The Royal College of Nursing will shortly publish a survey of its members and, without having seen the results, I have spent enough time with our nurses to know that they have not felt valued by the previous government and they are looking to Labour to deliver meaningful change to their profession. The GMB union has made similar representations on behalf of paramedics. Unite returned a negative ballot this week. Unison, the largest trade union in the country, knows better than anyone that staff right across the NHS are looking for material improvements to their pay and conditions. Many of them will never earn as much as the lowest-paid doctor. I have committed to work with them through the NHS staff council to make sure that we drive real change for their members, too. None of them have had a pay rise of 28.9%. Only resident doctors can claim to have received the highest pay rise in the public sector two years in a row. No wonder other NHS staff have looked on aghast at the action of the BMA. The BMA's demands, and the speed with which it launched a strike – and a five-day strike at that – have left many other NHS staff, most of them paid far less than doctors, dismayed and appalled. The BMA is now adding jobs to its pay dispute, presumably because its members agree that picking a fight on pay after a 28.9% pay increase is unprecedented and unreasonable, and they are more worried about whether they have jobs to go into. They are right to be concerned, but working with the BMA to address doctor unemployment and career bottlenecks are among a number of things we are able and willing to do to improve the lives of doctors. All I ask of the BMA is two things. The first is to drop this unnecessary and unreasonable rush to strike action. It harms doctors, it harms patients and it is fundamentally self-defeating, because it leaves the NHS with less money to address the issues that doctors care about. The second is to recognise that this government has a responsibility to all NHS staff and, above all, to patients. We can't fix everything for everyone everywhere all at once. Labour didn't break the NHS, nor did the doctors. Patients are looking to us to work together, as a team, to get their NHS back on its feet and build an NHS fit for the future. The past 12 months has shown what this government and the NHS can achieve when we pull together. Waiting lists are at their lowest levels in two years and it feels like the NHS is finally moving in the right direction. It should be clear to the BMA by now that it will lose a war with this government. It's not too late for us both to win the peace. Wes Streeting is secretary of state for health and social care Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
