The inquiry heard in harrowing detail the full horror of the impact the contaminated blood disaster had - and continues to have - on patients and their families.
Within six months of her haemophiliac brother dying of Aids contracted from contaminated blood products, one witness learned that her seven-year-old son had also contracted HIV from his treatment. He subsequently died of Aids aged just 16.
The mother of a 14-year-old boy who was infected with HIV told how he dropped out of school at the age of 16 with no qualifications in the wake of his diagnosis and became an alcoholic by the time he was 18 years old as he struggled to cope.
Patients who were unaware they had hepatitis C for a long time were left with the worry they may have infected others, including close relatives. One said: "Discovering I was Hepatitis C positive was a nightmare, a total nightmare. I was devastated at the thought of having potentially infected my wife and children. I was extremely relieved that my wife is negative for Hepatitis C."
One witness had two sons who acquired both HIV and hepatitis C from their haemophilia treatment. Both sons have developed Aids and suffer from severe depression.
A patient who contracted hepatitis C told how he had a wife, successful career, house and boat before his diagnosis. Now he is separated from his wife, homeless and living on benefits.
The stigma surrounding HIV and hepatitis C - particularly in the early years of the disaster - was frequently highlighted. One witness stated that he was told not to return to work because his wife had died of Aids.
Another witness known only as Christine told the inquiry how her elder son was infected with HIV and hepatitis C through treatment with blood products - which she administered to him at home from the age of five years old.
She said she was never warned about the risks and said: "We thought we were doing the best thing for our children by giving them something that allowed them to live a more normal life." Her son died aged 20 as the result of his infections.
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 hereComments are closed on this article