Letter: Negligence over growth hormone must be redressed

Sir: As a recipient of both human- extracted and synthetic growth hormone between 1978 and 1988, I read with interest your two articles on the subject of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (16 August). I too would like to see the Department of Health admit liability. If negligence on the part of some can be proved, then appropriate action should be taken.

However, as a committed Christian, I personally will not feel inclined to seek financial compensation if I do contract CJD; money, after all, cannot really compensate for a life lost, and could be better spent avoiding any risks from new treatments developed in the future.

Furthermore, it does seem that these days we are quick to seek damages wherever possible. Although I firmly believe that negligence should be exposed and not go unpunished, little is said about the fact that no technique can ever be completely free from risk - we must accept this as the flip side to the availability of so many advanced treatments. We are incredibly privileged to live in a country where these are available free on the NHS (when I was taking synthetic hormone, the cost to the Department of Health was almost pounds 5,000 a year for the hormone alone).

Aside from this, I would like to address an issue that was not raised in your article: I, and hence presumably other NHS hormone recipients, have received nothing in writing from the Department of Health on this subject.

When I was taken off the human- extracted hormone for a year before starting treatment with the synthetic version, the explanation given by the doctor was that he wanted to check whether my own pituitary gland was now producing adequate hormone by itself. I have a vague recollection of a conversation a year or two later in which CJD was mentioned, but I have learnt much more from the Channel 4 documentary last year and from your two articles. Some issues, however, still remain unclear.

Your article says that the disease is carried only in brain tissue, but both the Blood Transfusion and Bone Marrow Donation Services have refused to allow me to be a donor. Does this mean that there is some risk of it being transmitted through blood, for instance, if I cut myself and my blood comes into contact with someone else's wound? I hope that I can find the answer to this question by contacting the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, from where I received the treatment, but I really feel that these sorts of questions should have been answered back in 1985.

Yours faithfully,

DAVID HARPER-JONES

Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire

16 August