Infected Blood Scandal: Families Criticise ‘Penalty for Dying’ in Compensation Scheme

The families of victims impacted by the contaminated blood scandal are voicing concerns that the government’s compensation scheme inadvertently creates a “penalty for dying,” resulting in significant financial losses for bereaved families. The scheme, designed to offer redress to those infected with HIV or hepatitis through contaminated blood products administered by the NHS, and to their families, is facing renewed scrutiny as payouts are calculated in a way that disadvantages those who died earlier.

More than 30,000 people in the UK received contaminated blood treatments before 1996, leading to infections with HIV, hepatitis C, or hepatitis B – often in combination. Tragically, over 3,000 individuals have already died as a result of these infections. The current controversy centers on how financial losses are calculated within the compensation framework.

How the Compensation Scheme Works – and Where It Falls Short

Under the scheme, individuals infected with HIV or hepatitis are entitled to a base financial award of £12,500, supplemented by an additional award to account for loss of earnings stemming from their infection. Still, for families of those who have died, the calculation of financial loss is limited to the period between the date of infection and the date of death. This means that individuals who died in the early 1990s, potentially in the prime of their working lives, receive significantly lower compensation than those who survived and continued to earn income.

Charities, including the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust, have jointly expressed their dismay in an open letter, highlighting the disparity. They argue that this approach effectively penalizes individuals for succumbing to the consequences of the contaminated blood scandal, a wrong for which the compensation is intended to address. The letter points out that a person who died in the early 1990s could be missing out on nearly 50 years of potential earnings in the calculation.

Kate Burt, Chief Executive of the Haemophilia Society, emphasized the fundamental principle at stake: “Every single person infected as a result of contaminated blood deserves to be valued equally, regardless of whether they survive today or died many years ago.” She added that the scheme’s credibility hinges on this principle and that the continued fight for fair recognition decades after the loss is “utterly unacceptable.”

Personal Stories Illustrate the Impact

Ami Jai Presly lost her father, Jai Brahmbhatt, in 1993, when she was the same age she is now – 39. Professor Brahmbhatt, a business studies academic at Brunel University, had moved to the UK from Kenya seeking better treatment for his haemophilia. Presly discovered the flaw in the scheme when calculating her father’s estate’s entitlement, finding it covered only 16 years of financial loss. “We realised at that point that the current framework creates a penalty for dying,” she stated. “It’s unethical and wrong.”

Her sister, Meera Pierson, spoke to the enduring impact of the scandal on their family: “Our family experience, our family life – mine and Ami’s entire life – has been determined and overshadowed by the contaminated blood scandal, and the reality of what losing our dad meant.”

Rachel McGuinness’s father, Christopher Thomas, a haemophiliac, was diagnosed with HIV in 1984 and died in 1990. McGuinness described how her mother had to give up work to care for him, and how the family dynamic was profoundly altered. She expressed surprise and disappointment at the compensation scheme’s discrepancy, stating that it felt like “another hoop to jump through” for her aging mother, 30 years after her husband’s death.

Ian Dixon, campaigning alongside his wife Claire, shared the story of Claire’s mother, Nora Worthington, who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion in 1982 and later died of cancer in 1993. Dixon highlighted the stigma surrounding HIV at the time and the immense distress it caused the family. He emphasized that the issue isn’t about the money itself, but about recognizing the value of those who lost their lives.

The Inquiry’s Conclusion and Ongoing Concerns

The concerns surrounding the compensation scheme emerge as the Infected Blood Inquiry nears its conclusion. Sir Brian Langstaff, the inquiry chair, announced last month that the body would cease its work on March 31st, having “exercised the power it has.” The inquiry has been a long and arduous process for victims and their families, seeking to uncover the truth about the scandal and hold those responsible accountable. The BBC reports that victims sense further harmed by the delays in compensation.

What’s Next for the Compensation Scheme?

The government has acknowledged the concerns raised by victims and charities. A government spokesperson stated that they are “committed to listening to and working with” those affected to ensure justice is delivered and reflected in the compensation process. They also confirmed that they are carefully considering responses to a recent consultation and will publish their response within 12 weeks of the consultation’s closing date. This suggests potential revisions to the scheme are under consideration, but the timeline and scope of those changes remain uncertain.

The core issue revolves around how to equitably value the lives lost and the financial consequences of the contaminated blood scandal. The current scheme, as it stands, risks perpetuating a sense of injustice and failing to provide adequate redress for those who suffered the most devastating consequences. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the government will address these concerns and deliver a compensation scheme that truly honors the victims and their families.

For further information on the contaminated blood scandal and support resources, you can visit the Hepatitis C Trust and the Haemophilia Society websites.