Doctors treating haemophilia patients at an Edinburgh hospital around 1985 were more concerned about whether blood products might transmit HIV than hepatitis, an inquiry has heard.
The Infected Blood Inquiry was told a blood product available called NY was heat-treated, which was believed to inactivate HIV but not non-A, non-B hepatitis.
Thousands of patients across the UK were infected with HIV and hepatitis C – which was previously known as non-A, non-B hepatitis – through contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s.
READ MORE: Sir Brian Langstaff criticises late evidence
About 2,400 people died in what has been labelled the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.
Professor Christopher Ludlam, consultant haematologist and reference centre director at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from 1980 to 2011, continued giving evidence to the UK-wide inquiry remotely on Friday.
Jenni Richards QC asked him whether there was a need for a system to be put in place at the Royal Infirmary and other hospitals at the time to ensure patients with mild haemophilia did not receive NY unless absolutely necessary.
He replied: “A patient with mild haemophilia or a child with haemophilia who had a significant or serious bleed might still require treatment with clotting factor concentrate.
“At this time and over the following year or two, our chief concern was the possibility that blood products might transmit HIV, that was the really important thing.
“We were very keen indeed to try and avoid HIV transmission because of the consequences of it, and that in our minds became more important I think than the issue of non A, non B hepatitis, our first aim was to try and avoid HIV transmission.”
READ MORE: Treatments were unchanged due to ‘small risk of Aids transmission’
The inquiry also heard that in the summer of 1986, a young haemophiliac patient developed non A, non B hepatitis after receiving a heat-treated product.
Prof Ludlam said he had not been informed about the patient and was “upset” and “disappointed” to hear about it.
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