The second reading debate yesterday on Lord Morris of Manchester’s Private Members Bill attracted a fair number of contributions. The purpose of the Bill is to provide support for people who have been infected with certain diseases as a result of receiving contaminated blood and blood products supplied by the National Health Service. The Bill would establish a compensation package for people who have been infected, their widows, dependants and carers. It would also set up a committee to advise on the treatment of haemophilia and a review into the support available for infected people and their families.
Lord Morris of Manchester introduced a similar Bill with the same title in the 2009–10 parliamentary session. It completed its stages in the House of Lords in January this year, and received its first reading in the House of Commons on the same day, but made no further progress. As Lord Corbett of Castle Vale remarked, “If there was a Nobel Prize for persistence… Lord Morris of Manchester would walk away with it by a mile”. A small and stricken community of barely 5,000 people, already disabled by a rare, lifelong blood disorder requiring continuous medical treatment-haemophilia patients-have twice been infected en masse by contaminated blood and blood products used in their NHS treatment. Over 95 per cent were infected with hepatitis C, and one in four with HIV. Of the 1,243 haemophilia patients infected with HIV, only 361, 29 per cent, are still alive; and the much higher number of deaths from hepatitis C infection is still increasing. As of now, an estimated 1,994 haemophilia patients have died from being infected by contaminated NHS blood and blood products.
The contaminated blood issue is enormously emotive, as Earl Howe said responding for the Government. There is to be a further review completed by Christmas of the compensation awarded, and to see what else practical needs to be done for the sufferers and their families. But he resisted the call for legislation. I have some sympathy in this case with the Government. We should not be passing legislation simply because we have compassion for those affected. All legislation must deliver meaningful benefits and it is hard to see what would be achieved in practice. The Bill will not improve patient safety, treatment or services. Legislating for one patient group tends to skew clinical services away from the absolute fundamental that a clinician must always base his judgments on whom to prioritise for care based on clinical need. For these reasons, I agree with the Government that legislation on the issue is not appropriate. This doesn’t dim my admiration for Lord Morris’s campaign; wrong tactics but right objective.
Lord Morris’s campaign; wrong tactics but right objective.
I should say wrong tactics, wrong objective.
A Bishop enquired at one reading whether Lord morris was aware that some people are obliged to drink the human blood of others, and he replied that they were. The bishop enquired as to what kind of people that made the ones for whom Lord Morris was campaigning.
Don’t quote me, and my verbatim memory is not that good, but that is the way it seemed to me.
I am enquiring too.
Baroness Murphy is wrongfully making the categorically deductive statement that
“All legislation must deliver meaningful benefits” and “it is hard to see what would be achieved in practice” namely for the relief of malfeasance-based (“illegal” possibly “criminal”) longterm continuous suffering, caused by professional-ignorance, accident, neglect or ill-will, to a Victim and thereby secondarily to that victim’s dependants, family, associates and friends.
————
The baroness is all-for exterminating (by any means, and possibly regardless of sufferings) pests or unwanteds such as badgers; and it looks like she judges Suffering to be non-meaningful as a human real life-and death predicament; and she therefore wrongly concluds that that these innocent sufferers need no coverage by legislation.
Listen please: If you have an infected dog writhing and slowly dying in agony under your bed, would you not wish for a fast euthanasia drink to give to the poor and utterly innocent creature ?
How much more then, since none of us is allowed to put a person out of their misery, should you be caring for every suffering human-being, herein more especially for hundreds of completely innocent and defenceless victims of iatrogenicly-injurious medical-practices and -accidents ?
————–
The Bill should probably have insisted “Ongoing-Care For Infected and Bereaved persons”, rather than headlining “Compensation” which too often means an adversarially-narrowed-down “Lump-Sum-One-Off-Pay-Off” (and “may it help you to keep your mouth shut for evermore about this ‘most unfortunate accident’).
————–
In elementary infants school, way back before World War 2, I recall hearing that
“doctors, nurses, clinics and medicines are above all about doing no harm”.
So surely, baroness, deeper than your absolute fundamental that clinical need must dictate to whom clinical-care is to be given, there prevails an as deep “humane-care” fundamental, also guiding that clinical-decision-making.
I recall also hearing a bishop teaching hundreds of people at a time from a cathedral pulpit, that
“often the sin of Omission is more deadly than the sin of Commission”;
and that “sin against God the Creator and God the Redeemer may be forgiven you, but sin against the Holy Spirit may never be forgiven you”.
The Baroness appears to be comfortable in not simply herself risking “may never be forgiven you”, by supporting parliamentary pyrrhic victory, procrustean-bed surgery, mass-utilitarianism, battlefield-triagings, the majority-will knows best, and various bad-reasoning enthymemes, non-sequiturs and strawman-fallacies; but in putting everyone else at such risk, too.
Rather, shouldn’t she be fulfilling the mission and vocation of a Seated-Peer in the Upper House, to advocate for all kinds and conditions of People, to uphold “win-win-win” needs, hows and costs recognition & problem-solving, and to contribute “win-win-win” legislation thereto ?
———–
Even Conservative Peers should be above supporting one-sidedness such as the traditionally-tattered, ugly, and inhumane Toryist policy “Let the weak go to the wall”. This latter malfeasant-triage is currently being turned loose anew, to run amok most hurtfully among innocent, diadvantaged, and low-income Peoples.
————–
Baroness Murphy needs to be supportive towards victims of Infection, and indeed of all Iatrogenic injuries, if her blogging and her national-service are to succeed.
===========
1823St23Oct2010.
What I didn`t understand until recently and has amazed even donours of blood I know, is the fact the NHS are charged £600 per litre for blood. It appears the NHS Blood and Transplant department is setup as a seperate business to the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11038849
Now I would assume as any business they would be required to have insurances such as public liability and the like which would cover situations like this.
It is an extremely emotive subject and I have always been of the mind that one doesn`t sue the health service, that they do their best and sometimes errors occur. You still have the choice to refuse treatment. In asking for their help, you accept they do their best which at times may not be true but it`s better than no help.
It`s a very difficult subject but in the absence of wilful neglect I think one has to accept things do not always go to plan but that is not a reason in all cases to apportion blame. I`m sure the NHS and other Organisations will do their utmost to help those that suffered due to the unforseen circumstance. No amount of compensation will take the place of a loved one.
BM: The blog has touched upon private members bills in the past but what you may not know is that in the Commons a motion “That the House sit in private” can scupper such bills or delay others.
Lord Tyler as an MP used this to good effect on Wednesday Dec 5, 2001 during the debate on the anti terrorism bill. He had noticed that the government whips had left the chamber so he craftily put forward the motion. The motion was carried without any opposition from the front benches; somewhat of a rare occasion.
What I don’t know and cannot seem to find out is just how the Lords Temporal bring into play a private sitting? As the Lords Appellant could do this when they sat as a court should the Lords Temporal be allowed the same facility?
The fact that NHS treatment is free should surely disallow claims against the NHS itself?
What generally happens is that the claimant being seriously ill as a consequence of maltreatment/negligence/professional malpractice, then goes back to his GP and claims maximum benefits of up to £20000 pa
and is also able to make charitable please to various fund raising charities, bringing it up sometimes to £30,000pa.
Why Lord Morris should think that they need anything more than that, I cannot imagine.
If surgeons were open far more to the whims of the market place, ie paying out for damage and paying in for excellent work, as in the private sector, there would be a much,much lower bill for disability at the DSS/DWP.
Forget the whacky Bill lord Morris! It ain’t clever.
Gareth Howell, I cannot imagine where you heard that..the mind boggles.
JSDM, Should I respond? Courtesy says I should although I wonder if you take it in. First clinical need IS based on ‘humane” considerations of need. You have misunderstood what you read. I support the extra support and financial package that has been provided for the sufferers and families of hemophilia, there are indeed some things so unfortunate that the government should acknowledge the tragedy and make a contribution to relieving the impact of the suffering. The question is about whether specific legislation would make any difference. Your eleventh paragraph is truly a creative miracle, let’s have less enthymemes I say….
Carl H, The NHS Blood and Transplant Authority, established in 2005, didn’t exist in its current form when the infections unwittingly occurred and although it runs in a ‘businesslike way’ it is a public authority operating without insurance of this kind. The reason the Authority now prices and ‘sells’ blood is so that the NHS can understand in detail the costs of the activities it undertakes and the real costs of a transfusion. This allows better costing of operations and other procedures.
One issue that has been explored in depth was the possibility that the Government was aware of the risk of infection, it has been accepted that in Ireland they may have known. Here there is no evidence that the government could have known about the problem when the infections occurred. There is now a special Advisory Group on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs in the Department of Health which aims to avoid a similar disaster happening again (see http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SaBTO/DH_088830 )
Senex, on the whole, the Lords allows an introduction of a Private Members Bill when there is parliamentary time, usually Friday mornings. The difficulty is that unless it has the support of the Government in advance it is highly unlikely to get through its stages in the Commons. It just slides into the ground through neglect. Perhaps there are mechanisms to block it and Lord Norton may know about them but they aren’t used much. I really think it’s always worth giving a bill an airing because it stimulates debate and quite often gets the Government to shift their position a little, as I believe Lord Morris’s bill will.
is the fact the NHS are charged £600 per litre for blood.
It depends on the rarity of the blood Carl H.
The rarer the blood the higher the cost.They don’t tell donors that. do they!!
where you heard that..the mind boggles.
That Baroness is why the Benefits system is out of control, precisely because it is in the hands of General practitioners.
A permanently and severely handicapped person from birth may obtain that sum for life, including LG housing benefits.
(The housing benefits system is out of control for completely different reasons of the relationship between district,Central govt, and the benefit claiming partners of LG employees)
rarity of the blood Carl H.
IE the rarity of the blood GROUP. there may be a shortage of any group at any one time pushing the price up for that group. Don’t forget either that blood or the blood system is an organ of the body so similar considerations apply to the rarity of other bodily organs.
The rarer they are, the higher the price.
If that is the case Gareth, I`m not sure I understand why NHS B&T act as a business ie., charging more for rarer groups as market forces change ? Surely if it is only a on paper affair a litre of blood is a litre of blood ?
Surely if the price alters and I presume there maybe competition between NHS trusts on price then this isn`t an exercise role but a fully fledged profit making business ?
I`m not up on this and a little confused.
Wiki say`s NOT for Profit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Blood_and_Transplant
Yet the official document below shows “sustainable profit”.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc00/0083/0083.pdf
“Bio Products Laboratory (BPL)
Continue to focus on developing BPL into a business that is capable of
generating a sustainable profit, cash surpluses and self-funding its development
needs over the long term. In the long term BPL is aiming to become a business
with the following shape:
o Sustainable processing of 1,000,000 litres of plasma per annum.
o A robust sales income of at least £165m per annum.
o Gross profit margins of around 30%.
o A trading profit margin of around10%.
I think people have a right to know that what they give altruistically is then profiteered on. I certainly do not think the public at large know the full story.
Carl does some interesting and intelligent research in these subject threads, not least the above.
I got my information from a second opinion (ie private consultant) to whom I went with a slightly jaundiced leg, after an NHS transfusion which I did not ask for or want. (Individual limbs can and do get
jaundice in that way). They also stole a substantial amount of Haemoglobin from me again without asking, on the pretext of a serious op for a broken leg, on the other leg.
Without giving you,or the Blesséd BM, my medical history in the usual way, it would seem from your above post, that you have not calculated the interests of Private medicine in “spare” organs and/or blood, for which a market price would have to be worked out.
JDSM
should you be caring for every suffering human-being, herein more especially for hundreds of completely innocent and defenceless victims of iatrogenicly-injurious medical-practices and -accidents ?
The baroness’ reply to JDSM is delightful, but saying so much, JDSM invariably strikes a chord somewhere with somebody. Perhaps they have not been hitting the spot recently which is why they suddenly and explicably, got shorter!
The Baroness’ reply to the above quote is also sufficient, but for me to remind JDSM that the golden rule of Medicine is “Progress”.
Without attempting to right all wrongs, as with this Bill for compensation, progress would be far more difficult, if not impossible.
Medical Progress relies on experimentation, and in my view, vast amounts of highly undesirable experimentation, which is nonetheless permitted or promoted by bills such as this.
Such people, Haemophiliacs, who suffer in such a way from bad blood transfusions, may do EXACTLY WHAT ANY OTHER SERIOUSLY DISABLED PERSON MAY DO, make the maximum claims from the State in any case.
They all are, in any case.
Lord Morris wants compensation out of all proportion to existing state disability benefits, ie in the £100,000s per person, if he can get it.
That is thoroughly foolish.
baronessmurphy said on 25/10/2010
One issue that has been explored in depth was the possibility that the Government was aware of the risk of infection
Sadly, the government was aware that some products were at higher risk than others and pushed stocks of high risk products up to Scotland, to be used up there, with the purer products to be used in England. This is from personal experience. There is a cupability issue here and if you have time to examine the issues further there are other culpability issues.
There are some Haemophiliacs who have had to fight incredibly hard against all sorts of opposition, for treatment, so that they can just continue to work and be part of the tax paying public and not a burden. This group has never had the high political profile of some other groups so has been marginalised.
The problem Alfred is that the NHS is more worried in this case about the NHS than the victims.
Given that the NHS itself admits to killing or contributing to the deaths of 20,000 people per year. (Their estimates, not mine), they will also harm large numbers of people as well.
You don’t see 20,000 claims or anywhere near that number. The reason is they keep the harm secret or don’t even look for the damage they do, in order to prevent payouts. In addition, if people realised how bad the situation has reached there would be a huge push to replace the NHS with something else. Hence the defences go up.
The fundamental problem is structural. Three roles, insurer, supplier and regulator are one and the same. That’s why Nice existed. It’s the insurer head saying I don’t like paying out money. The regulator part won’t act, because the supplier part will lose. The 4th person in the room, the patient doesn’t get a look in.
Thanks Lord Blagger. It was the incredibly hard and long fight for treatment that was so frustrating, when money was being “squandered” on non-life threatening experimentation by this NHS Trust.
This wasn’t a fight for compensation but a fight to keep well enough to work and not become a burden to the taxpayer. That’s what made no sense.
(This wasn’t for me but for a very close family member)