The infected blood scandal compensation scheme has sparked outrage among families of victims, who feel they are being unfairly penalized for their loved ones' deaths. The scheme, designed to provide financial support to those affected by contaminated blood products, has been criticized for its lack of fairness and consideration for the deceased.
One of the main issues lies in the calculation of financial loss. Each infected person is entitled to a basic award of £12,500, plus an additional financial loss award based on their earnings post-infection. However, for victims who died before the scheme's inception, their families are only entitled to a limited financial loss calculation, from the date of infection until their passing. This means that the estates of those who died early in the scandal receive significantly less compensation compared to those who survived.
The letter from charities, including the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust, highlights a stark disparity. If a person died in the early 1990s, their estate might only receive financial loss recognition for a fraction of their working life, whereas if they were alive today, the compensation would cover a much longer period. This creates a situation where the deceased are being penalized for their inability to survive, despite the scheme's purpose being to address the government's wrongdoing.
Ami Jai Presly, whose father died in 1993, exemplifies this issue. Her father, Jai Brahmbhatt, was a professor who moved to the UK for better treatment. When calculating the financial loss, Presly discovered that the scheme only accounted for 16 years of her father's life, which she deemed unethical and wrong. Her sister, Meera Pierson, emphasizes the profound impact of the scandal on their family, stating that nothing can replace the loss of their father.
Rachel McGuinness also shares a similar story. Her father, Christopher Thomas, a haemophiliac, died in 1990, and the compensation scheme's discrepancy left her disappointed. McGuinness highlights the emotional and practical challenges her family faced due to the scandal, including her mother's job loss and her brother's role as a young carer. She argues that the additional burden of navigating the compensation process at an advanced age is unfair.
Ian Dixon, who has been campaigning alongside his wife, Claire, further underscores the scheme's unfairness. His mother, Nora Worthington, received contaminated blood in 1982 and later died from HIV-related cancer in 1993. If she had survived, Dixon estimates she would have received over £2 million in compensation, but her estate will only receive just over £1 million. He emphasizes that the issue is not about the monetary value but about recognizing and valuing the lives of those who lost their lives to the scandal.
The government, however, has acknowledged the flaws in the scheme and promised to address them. A spokesperson stated that the government is committed to making the system fair and compassionate and is carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation. They aim to publish their response within 12 weeks of the consultation's closing date.
In conclusion, the infected blood scandal compensation scheme's flaws have caused immense distress to families who feel their loved ones' lives are being undervalued. The scheme's current structure creates a penalty for dying, which is deeply unethical and fails to provide the necessary support and recognition to those affected by this tragic scandal.
