[Link]

"Emotional testimonies from people infected with HIV and hepatitis have been heard at the start of the inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

The public inquiry is looking at how thousands of NHS patients were given infected blood products during the 1970s and 1980s in what has been dubbed the worst-ever NHS treatment disaster.

In a video played to the inquiry, one man described how he felt he lost his entire life after finding out at the age of 43 that he had been infected with hepatitis C when he was a child." (BBC website, 24 Sept 201

I feel sorry for people who got given infected blood supplies.
I was given a transfusion after a successful operation in 1984 (aged 16). As I watched TV from my bed, a news article came on about how blood supplies had been contaminated with HIV/AIDS. I didn't get infected (yet), but I would share some thoughts.

I really needed that blood transfusion, and as soon as I was 18 I began repaying the debt by donating. Some people have religious beliefs which prevent blood transfusion, but when you need it,..your mindset may change.
Having given around 58 units, in 2005 I was banned from giving blood. This was because they haven't yet found a reliable technique for testing of BSE (mad cow disease). This , in theory, can lie dormant in the bloodstream for many, many years, and as I had a transfusion in 1984, I am deemed "high risk".

(nearly there)

So my point is this. The people claiming compensation for getting infected blood. Has their life-span been extended because they had a transfusion. In probably most cases 'YES'. If they had been given free-choice at the time of having a transfusion, knowing the risks, probably most would have said 'YES'.
Science is developing, and our knowledge is getting better all the time.
So why are people suing those trying to help save their lives ?
It's like A&E staff being sued for giving the wrong medical treatment.
You can only work with what you have at the time. These people claiming compo should have been left to die. Just my opinion.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Good points, Badger, and well made.
It's always people at the sharp-end who get the cr@p, but you are quite correct in saying that people 'at the top' knew what was happening.
I just see this ending with some nurses having to resign, whilst the culpable managers retire on final salary pension.
I'm cynical like that. Or maybe just a realist.

I disengage, I turn the page.

My wife is a nurse and she's always criticizing them

photos required

I disengage, I turn the page.

Undoubtedly those at fault were the US suppliers and also the UK procuerers who failed to check the source properly.
You cannot blame those who actually used the contaminated blood.
They, like the recipients, have to trust the supply chain.
The biggest disgrace of all was tthat it was covered up for so long

Germany has a great level of care and it is universal. The unemployed have a fully state funded insurance scheme. Workers have a choice to some degree in whatever scheme they choose to enroll in, but you can't chop and change as you please. Some end up cheap in the short term, expensive when you're old (and on a fixed income!) Others, you pay more at the start, but later on you'll have to pay less (effectively subsidised by younger members).

Germany's health system provides a better quality of care, but they also pay more for it.

The NHS provides a fantastic level of care, considering the per-person budget.

If we were to follow Germany's model, expect better care and also to pay more!

Not to familiar with the healthcare system in other European countries, but I believe lots of Northern/western European countries have broadly comparable systems.