The infected blood scandal is yet another tale of families who won’t quit in a dogged fight for justice

Hillsborough, the Post Office – and now the infected blood scandal – show the power of campaigners to exact justice, writes James Moore. But why must those in charge be dragged, kicking and screaming to the altar of competence?

Victims and campaigners outside Central Hall in Westminster (PA)

When you go into surgery, the fact that you may require a blood transfusion is probably low on your list of concerns. This is a time-tested part of the process that ought to be one of the safer parts of it. Right?

Unfortunately, as the infected blood inquiry’s damning and deeply disturbing final report makes clear, this was not a guarantee. And during what proved to be a grim period in the history of the NHS and the British state more widely it would have been at the top of patients’ fears – if only they had known.

At the height of this disgraceful scandal (the report identifies the period between 1970 and 1998), blood and blood products contaminated with viruses including Hepatitis and HIV were routinely used in transfusions. Screening was not performed, even when the blood was imported or taken from high-risk groups such as intravenous drug users.