Compensation for Bad Blood

posted: 11/01/2011

More compensation will be paid to people (who are mainly people with haemophilia) who got hepatitis C from contaminated blood transfusions by the NHS over 20 years ago, the government announced.

Many people got HIV through the same contaminated blood scandal, while others got both HIV and hepatitis C and some just hepatitis C. The compensation arrangements for HIV and hepatitis C were different and people with hepatitis C felt cheated.

Hepatitis C campaigners are still unhappy and will continue to fight for more help. One of the campaigning groups, Tainted Blood, said the offer "hugely disappointing", and Haemophilia Society chief executive Chris James said the payments "would not bring closure to many people."
 

HIV complaint too

A man with HIV from Blackburn, Lancashire, 'John Smith' has also criticised the compensation scheme as inadequate. 

‘Serious disease' payments
The announcement by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, follows a three-month review of the compensation paid to those who were infected with hepatitis C, which can cause liver damage and cancer. Separate settlements were made to those who got HIV through blood transfusions. Some people were infected with both HIV and hepatitis C. Many of those who received contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s have died.
 

Cirrhosis and liver cancer
The new deal offers better compensation to those whose hepatitis C infection has progressed to cause serious disease. The current terms allow a one-off payment of £20,000 to all those infected, with a further £25,000 if they develop more severe diseases, such as cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Under the new deal, the second group – those with severe diseases – will get an annual payment of £12,800 a year. Those with severe diseases who have already been given a lump sum will have it increased from £25,000 to £50,000.

There will also be "discretionary payments" to those most in need, and the dependents of those who died before 2003 will for the first time be able to claim. There will also be a doubling in a one-off payment to £50,000 when people become very ill.
 

"I fully recognise that the unintended and tragic consequences of these treatments have seriously impaired the lives of many people, together with those of their families," said Lansley. "For too long those people infected with hepatitis C have received different support to those infected with HIV. We now intend to make the financial support for hepatitis C patients fairer and more comparable to the arrangements for those infected with HIV."
 

Campaigners’ disappointment
But, after decades of fighting for what they consider fair settlement, including the recent independent inquiry by Lord Archer which recommended much greater generosity from the government, campaigners said they were devastated.
 

Sue Threakall, secretary of Tainted Blood, said: "While there are some minor positive points, we are devastated by this announcement. There are a limited number of people that the new financial support will be available to and the level of payment to those who will qualify is hugely disappointing. It will not bring to an end the years of suffering and will mean that the campaign for achieving proper compensation for all will continue with a new vigour."
 

Chris James, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, said he thought the reaction from the community would be that it is "a gesture rather than a settlement. People will not feel that this is going to bring closure in terms of the money being paid. The levels of compensation are not in the region that people still feel is appropriate for the impact on their lives."
 

Those who were infected but not severely ill would get nothing more – unless they were in serious need and qualified for a discretionary payment – and the new annual payment for those with liver cancer is only likely to be paid for very few years because life expectancy for people with liver cancer is short.
 

Sources

Guardian
BBC

£35,000 for Sacked HIV+ Teacher

posted: 10/05/2010

A teacher living with HIV won £35,000 compensation for being unfairly forced out of her job at an independent school. The school, in eastern England, sacked the teacher after claiming that she had failed to satisfactorily complete her six-month probationary period. But it had suspended her from her job after just three months, because she has HIV.

'Danger to pupils' nonsense

The school claimed that the teacher's condition was a "danger to pupils and colleagues", according to details released by teaching union the NUT, which represented her. The school also told an employment agency she has HIV, which breachs her right to privacy and confidentiality. There's no evidence from anywhere of any HIV transmission in schools. Sex with teachers is not part of any school's curriculum so how could the pupils and her colleagues even be in 'danger'?  

Neither the school nor the teacher can be named because of a confidentiality agreement the school and teacher signed. As well as £35,000 compensation, the teacher received a letter of apology and a reference.

Terrence Higgins Trust commented that more still needs to be done to challenge the stigma and discrimination associated with HIV.

"Sadly, prejudice and ignorance related to HIV are still a big problem for many people living with the condition, particularly in relation to the workplace," she said. "Leading ordinary lives can be made really difficult if there is stigma in the workplace, in the health system, or in their private lives. The virus can't be passed on by day-to-day contact, so there's no reason why people living with HIV shouldn't be able to undertake normal duties at work."

Reliable HIV in Schools information

HIV in Schools pack from NAT (National AIDS Trust)  

source

Hepatitis and HIV Compensation

posted: 19/04/2010

An award-winning composer who contracted HIV and hepatitis C after receiving contaminated blood on the NHS around twenty years ago has made more progress in the legal battle for compensation.
 

Andrew March, 36, applied for a Court order to overrule the government’s decision not to award compensation similar to the compensation given to people infected by blood products in the Republic of Ireland.
 

An independent inquiry last year called for an overhaul of payouts to those who got HIV and / or hepatitis in the 1970s and 1980s through transfusions with unscreened and untreated contaminated blood. Ministers refused.
 

But a High Court judge has now ruled that the Government’s approach “has been, and remains, infected by error.”
 

Inquiry recommended compensation like in Ireland
The 2009 inquiry by Lord Archer of Sandwell found that 4,670 haemophiliacs who received blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s were infected with hepatitis C, of whom 1,243 were also infected with HIV.
 

By May last year, almost 2,000 people had died as a result, and £142 million has been paid in compensation to victims.
 

But the inquiry recommended that British victims be compensated on the same level as in Ireland, where those who contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood were paid on average £750,000, and people infected with HIV received up to £101,000.
 

Dodgy excuse to say no
The Government refused to pay patients a similar level of compensation as it argued that the Irish blood transfusion service was found to be at fault, which was not the case in the Britain. This interpretation is disputed both in Ireland and the UK.
 

Although the government announced increased compensation for those who got HIV, it only offered to review the hepatitis payments in another five years. It refused to assess payments in the same way as Ireland.

Judge warns against 'false optimism'

Mr Justice Holman, sitting in the High Court, said that this argument was flawed, but that it was not his role to rule on the amount that should be paid, adding that campaigners should not now have “false optimism”. “I have given no steer or indication whatsoever as to what the Government may decide upon reconsideration, and it would be a grave abuse of my role if I were to do so,” he said. “The campaign may now return to the political arena, but no one should leave this courtroom with a false optimism.”
 

The Department of Health now says it would "now consider the position".
 

Mr March said: “Having the judgement go in our favour gives us no pleasure at all. The judge’s decision proves the flawed basis on which the Government made it decision not to implement the recommended compensation scheme. The judgment now compels the Government to retake the decision lawfully and based on accurate information.”

Source

Source 2 
 

Outrage at Blood Scandal Payout

posted: 21/05/2009

The government is accused of meanness to save money, rather than give justice for survivors, in the worst treatment scandal of NHS history. It decided not to increase compensation for people infected in the 1970s and 1980s with hepatitis C during routine blood transfusions. A small increase is to be paid to people who became infected with HIV in the same NHS scandal.

Significant numbers of those infected are haemophiliacs who regularly required concentrated blood products made from many donors - such as Factor 8.

An independent inquiry into the scandal, chaired by Lord Archer of Sandwell, in February recommended better payouts for nearly 3,000 affected haemophiliacs, as well as help for widows and dependants.

A Little more for HIV. For Hepatitis C: government will reconsider, in 2014

Their hopes were dashed today by a response from the Department of Health offering an increase for the minority who were infected with HIV but nothing more than a review in five years' time for the rest.

Archer condemned the response as "deeply disquieting" and a "faltering step that only compounds the anguish of the afflicted and bereaved".

He said: "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that humanitarian impulses have come a bad second to Treasury constraints."

Archer branded the new funding for patients with HIV "paltry", and said the failure to increase help available to victims with hepatitis C and to offer payment to their dependants was "sadly lacking both in understanding and in compassion".

In the 1970s and 80s about 4,670 haemophiliacs were given blood contaminated with the hepatitis C virus and 1,200 were unwittingly infected with HIV. The blood products came from commercial companies in the USA whose paid donors included drug addicts and prisoners.

The health minister Dawn Primarolo, publishing the government's response, offered the victims her deepest sympathy.

"Sadly, it was not possible to effectively test for these viruses in the 1970s and early 80s and we deeply regret that these events occurred following NHS treatment," she said.

More for HIV+ people

In addition to £150m that has already been shared out in lump sums and discretionary payments, financial help for those with HIV would rise to £12,800 per year, Primarolo announced. She gave a commitment to review financial relief for the others within five years and announced £100,000 for the Haemophilia Society, which recently had its government funding cut by £70,000.

Chris James, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, said: "It is hard to believe that ministers can actually have read Lord Archer's landmark findings in full – still less the heartrending testimonies of haemophilia patients infected by contaminated NHS blood and blood products and the bereaved families.

"The government claims to accept the moral case for action but then, by not implementing the recommendations in full, shows its contempt for the victims of what Lord Winston has described as the "worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS".

He said that while haemophilia patients – some of whom were very ill and had since died – had travelled many miles to give evidence to the inquiry opposite the House of Commons, no health minister was willing to cross the road.

Fight goes on

James said he would write to the leaders of the three main parties this week asking for an urgent meeting. After two years of deliberations, Lord Archer had put forward a series of humane and detailed recommendations to improve the lives of the victims of NHS mistakes, he said.

"The government talks of moral responsibility but has seen fit to try to ignore or water down Lord Archer's recommendations. In a week when the morality of the political process has been called into doubt it is simply unacceptable for ministers to propose such a collection of half measures."

Lord Morris of Manchester, who was instrumental in getting the inquiry set up and who has raised the issues regularly in parliament, said: "This response will totally dismay the victims of an NHS treatment disaster that had already claimed the lives of 1,757 haemophiliac patients when I announced the setting up of the inquiry in February 2007."

Since then, he said, in excess of 200 more had died and it was now thought that 802 people with haemophilia had been given blood from donors who had since died from variant CJD.

Lord Morris said it was "totally wrong" to treat patients differently according to whether they were infected with just hepatitis C or HIV as well. He thought it was "cruelly wrong" not to offer help to the widows and dependents of those affected.
 

Source

BBC

Times

Hospital Pays for Refusing Treatment

posted: 29/04/2009

An NHS trust in Northern Ireland admitted that it was wrong to refuse a person with HIV medical treatment, has apologised, and paid £4000 compensation.

The man was refused an endoscopy by staff at Craigavon hospital, Portadown.

An endoscopy is a way of looking inside your body with a thin, long, flexible tube containing a tiny light and video camera. The doctor can explore and see what is going on inside you on a TV screen. The Southern Health Trust admitted they refused the endoscopy only because the man has HIV.

He complained of disability discrimination – it is illegal to discriminate against people with HIV from the moment of their diagnosis in health care, employment, education, and the delivery of good and services. His formal complaint was supported by the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland.

No risk
Normal infection control procedures are sufficient to prevent the transmission of HIV to healthcare staff or other patients from endoscopies or other medical procedures.

Southern Health Trust settled the civil court case saying that the behaviour of staff at Craigavon Area Hospital had been “entirely inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Equality Commission said the Disability Discrimination Act “was designed to break down barriers to stigma, and fear that prevent people with HIV from accessing services…we are pleased the Southern Health and Social Care Trust has recognised this and agreed to liaise with the Equality Commission to review its practices and procedures and ensure that they are effective and conform to the law.”

Four months wait for second best
Refusal to perform the endoscopy meant he had to wait four months to have an alternative procedure. “The denial of this procedure, and the length of time involved in my treatment, created a great deal of anxiety and distress”, he said. He added “the hospital has confirmed to me that they have the facilities and appropriate procedures in place to perform the endoscopy on patients with HIV and I believe that they should have followed those procedures in my case and respected my dignity as a patient in their care. Thankfully my treatment has now been completed but I wouldn't want other HIV patients to go through a similar experience."

Apology and compensation

The Trust apologised to him for the injury to his feelings and distress experienced by him as a result as it settled his claim in the county court for £4000. It also agreed to undertake a review of its policies which might affect services for people living with HIV.
 

Stigma
"We have accepted that [he] should have received his treatment without delay and have apologised to him for not providing the high standard of care that every patient has a right to expect," said the spokesperson. "The trust is committed to treating all patients who need our help, and we have an excellent record in improving access to our services for patients with a range of disabilities."
 

Equality Commission casework director Anne McKernan said people with HIV were given clear protection from discrimination under changes introduced in 2007. "This change to the law was designed to break down the barriers of stigma, and fear which have prevented people with HIV from accessing many services, such as housing, education or, as in [his] case, appropriate medical services," Ms McKernan said.
 

"We are pleased the Southern Health and Social Care Trust has recognised this and agreed to liaise with the Equality Commission to review its practices and procedures and ensure they are effective and conform with the law."
 

George House Trust comment
The NHS collects the largest number of complaints about HIV stigma and discrimination – it’s a very big organisation and everyone diagnosed has regular dealings with the NHS. The complaints are not about HIV clinics or STI clinics (or very rarely), but about dentists, GPs and other parts of hospitals – like in this case where an endoscopy was refused.

This case shows it can pay to complain. The hospital has had a major wake up call and has to review its policy and practice with the Equalities Commission. We hope this will now means that HIV+ people using this hospital are always treated respectfully and fairly in future.

The man who complained needs applauding. £4000 is not a great deal, but he got the apology he was after, and some reassurance that they won’t stigmatise and discriminate against other people living with HIV in the district.

We believe the hospital staff need better HIV awareness and training. This is not on the list of things the Equalities Commission will now be checking with the Trust. They'll be checking the policies and this does need doing, but what the incident really reveals is the attitudes and knowledege of ordinary nursing and other clinical staff that really needs attention. It wasn't the hospital's formal policy to refuse the endoscopy, it was a member of staff behaving unprofessionally and the wider clinical team's failure to challenge that refusal of necessary treatment and care.

Source - aidsmap

Source - BBC

Photo - David Morley architects