Blood Contamination: Statury needed

The work I am writing about for this weeks blog post is an informational blog post on the statute and justice that will be brought to families who lost relatives due to the medical negligence of blood contamination that happened four decades ago in the UK.

The title is “contaminated blood: statutory inquiry announced” by Jim Duffy and was posted on the 7th of November of 2017 on the UK Human Rights blog by One Crown Office Row. The topic the blog post deals with is a case from decades ago where thousands of people were affected by blood contamination and how until now justice is being served for those affected and their families that suffered from the blood contamination.

It all started decades ago around the 1970s and 80s,  7,500 people in the UK were infected with HIV or Hepatitis C, this people were infected with contaminated ‘clotting factor’ products. At least 2,400 patients died and the rest are now terminally ill. This was caused by an infection of plasma derived products that were contaminated and imported from the US blood donors. It was found that the donors were drug users and HIV infecte users. In America, blood donors get paid to donate blood and therefore attracted the wrong kind of users to donate blood. Due to no testing or regulations applying to the blood, it got transferred to the UK and given to citizens who required blood, infecting them with IV or terminal illnesses. The blog explained how even though this happened decades ago, it is until now that justice will be served. The current PM Theresa May is in support of a statute inquiry to take action against the department of health. A new law is aiming to be passed that incriminates this type of medical negligence and aims to regulate and test blood that was donated to be able to prevent this type of national catastrophes form ever happening.

The blog presented incredibly well the topic, by dividing it in simple sections that explained the events in the chronological order that they happened in. The style was effective and an understandable legal language was used. The work was presented in short sentences and paragraphs, which made it enjoyable to read and not heavy.

The topic was treated with respect, however you can tell that it was a bias opinion, clearly against the government and its opinions. This was done very subtly across the article and then was made clear on the final comment from the author in the end. It was slightly bias, but it did not lead purely with the author’s own opinion it also delivered facts in a concise way, letting the reader form its own judgement before delivering his own opinion.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *