Some haemophiliac patients did not find out whether they were HIV positive until more than two years after receiving infected transfusions, an inquiry has heard.
The Infected Blood Inquiry was told two patients who were informed they may have been infected did not request tests to find out, while others were “adamant” they did not want to know.
Giving evidence to the UK-wide inquiry remotely on Thursday, Professor Christopher Ludlam, consultant haematologist and reference centre director at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from 1980 to 2011, said he knew of 16 positive cases in October 1984.
The inquiry has been told 23 haemophiliac patients in total, two of them children, became infected with HIV after treatment at the Edinburgh Centre in 1984.
Patients were invited to a group meeting in December that year when they were told about the situation and were offered tests to find out whether they had antibodies to HTLV-III, the previous name for HIV.
Jenni Richards QC asked Prof Ludlam: “There were two patients who after two years still didn’t know their results because they had not responded to any invitation to proactively contact the centre and a very small number of patients declined to know the result?”
He replied that was correct and said the two people who had not asked for their results found out at the end of January 1986, or very early in January 1987.
Asked when others may have found out, he said: “I cannot remember when they eventually heard.”
He said one patient who did not want to know their test results did not attend the December meeting, and Prof Ludlam made a point of contacting him.
The professor told the inquiry: “It was of particular concern to me because I saw that there was a possibility that other people could be at risk and I would have felt more comfortable if he had known.
“I suspect he must have thought he might be.”
Thousands of patients across the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
About 2,400 people died in what has been labelled the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.
The inquiry before chairman Sir Brian Langstaff continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here