Should the bunglers in the blood scandal been punished?

In the year, 1997, Mr. Justice Krever, the head of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada published his report on his three-year study into the blood scandal in Canada that has cost the lives of over 3,000 Canadians and has put at risk, another 30,000. In his 1,138-page report he clearly accused top officials of the Canadian Red Cross and other officials in the federal and provincial governments and in drug companies of bungling.

The blood victims were infected with HIV ( Aids) or hepatitis C (which can bring about fatal liver damage) through blood transfusions with blood donated by persons infected with these viruses.

On December 10, 1980, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta came out with a warning that there was a link between AIDS and blood transfusion.

By January, 1983, American agencies were scrambling to make sure that blood donors who were at risk at being infected with Aids (intravenous drug users and homosexuals) were excluded from the list of potential donors but in Canada, Dr. Roger Perrault, the Canadian national director of transfusion services of the Canadian Red Cross, (after being warned of the impending danger to recipients of blood transfusions) sent instructions to the various divisions across the country that there would be no change in its policy about who could or could not donate blood to the Red Cross.

As a direct result of his stupid decision, many donors who suffered from Aids or hepatitis C continued to donate their virus-laden blood, which in the end, was transfused into the bodies of thousands of hapless victims who were unaware at that time that many of them were being slowly murdered as a direct result of the unforgivable bungling by that Red Cross official.

In March of 1983, Canada's first hemophiliac (a person whose blood does not clot properly) had already died of Aids that he got as a result of a blood transfusion. The Canadian Red Cross, by then being aware of the potential risk, had urged those donors at high risk not to donate their blood but it didn't take any further steps to prevent the catastrophe which was emerging, such as asking the donors questions which might have given the officials an inkling that the donors were carrying contaminated blood within their own systems. As a result, more virus-laden contaminated blood flowed from their arms and eventually into the arms of hospital patients across Canada who were undergoing surgery.

On the 9th of June 1983, AIDS was a major topic of discussion at the annual meeting of the Ontario Medical Association. In her address before that body of physicians, Dr. Jenny Heathcoate cautioned against AIDS hysteria, citing the presence of only 21 cases in Canada since 1979. She further condemned the Red Cross’s practice of preventing gay men and Haitians from donating blood as ‘gross discrimination.’

On the 27th of June 1983, Dr. Norman Lapointe told a meeting of the Canadian Pediatric Society that 70% of AIDS cases have been homosexuals, although it had also been reported in Haitians, hemophiliacs and drug addicts.

By 1984, medical journals were warning everyone of the potential risk at getting transfusions of blood donated by contaminated donors but despite those warnings, Canadian Red Cross officials and other bungling bureaucrats in the Canadian federal and provincial governments stood by and watched like disinterested bystanders.

In March 1985, at a meeting of senior Canadian Red Cross officials, Dr. John Derick, their AIDS project director, warned that there might soon be cases of transfusion-associated AIDS in Canada. Keep in mind that they were aware of this danger as early as December 1982. Obviously the German proverb, "Too Smart Too Late" has real significance in situations like this.

The Canadian Red Cross sent out pamphlets to its various divisions across Canada that were to be given to blood donors asking them not to donate blood if they were homosexuals or intravenous drug users. I can only say at this point of my article that that was "Too Little Too Late" It should be kept in mind that Canadian donors are not paid for their donations and at that prior to those pamphlets being handed out to blood donors, it wasn't known to those donors who had AIDS what dangers lie ahead to patients as a result of their blood donations, so it follows that those donors cannot be faulted for donating their infected blood at that time.

In February 1985, the Canadian Red Cross, was FINALLY convinced that there was a relationship between deaths of blood transfusions recipients and infected donors, so that organization began using evaluating test kits that would identify the presence of HIV antibodies in donated blood.

By now however, all the damage had been done. Thousands upon thousands of victims of this horrible scandal were suffering from the after effects of bureaucratic bungling brought about by meaningless meetings, budget concerns and so forth which had delayed appropriate screening techniques.

In 1985, the Canadian Red Cross expanded their screening questionnaire to include questions about swollen glands and other AIDS symptoms. They also began handing out pamphlets on AIDS at their blood donor clinics in Toronto. But by October 1985, blood donations in Ontario dropped 20% because of a fear of contracting AIDS from donation, causing a severe blood shortage.

In 1986, after two months screening blood donations, the Canadian Red Cross reported only a 0.25% incidence of positive tests (45 of 182,324 donations) If they had begun their screening of blood several years earlier, thousands of lives would have been saved.

However, as late as 1987, the officials of the Canadian Red Cross were still in the stage of denial. Dr. Derrick said even then that the chances of contacting AIDS or hepatitis C from transfusion of blood received by the Red Cross prior to 1985 was 1 in 200,000. Justice Krever in his report in 1997 stated that in that same period of time, the chances were more realistically, 34 in 200,000.

It's ironic when you think about it. The gay community across Canada was more concerned about donating infected blood than the Canadian Red Cross was. That community was highly praised in the report for their willingness to recognize the potential risk to recipients of their possible infected blood.

NOW the Canadian Red Cross was prepared to say that it was sorry. They had no other choice. The Report condemned them thoroughly. But these top officials in the Canadian Red Cross and other bungling bureaucrats in the federal and provincial governments and officials in drug companies actually had the nerve to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to order Justice Krever not to publish their names. They lost and the Report gave out the names of the bunglers.

Canada began working on a plan to award damages to victims and their families of this blood scandal although many awards were previously given, such as initial payments of $22,000 and $30,000 a year for the rest of their lives----however long or short their lives might be. It took years before all the awards were given out. Unfortunately because of bureaucratic bungling, many of the victims died before they were given their awards.

The Canadian Red Cross was gradually phased out of the business of acquiring and controlling blood products in Canada.

Now what remained to be done was to punish these bunglers.

In Canada, we have two criminal offences called, "Causing Death by Criminal Negligence" (section 220) which can be punishable by life imprisonment and "Causing Bodily Harm by Criminal Negligence" (section 221) which can be punishable by imprisonment up to ten years.

This kind of criminal charge applies to persons who drive motor vehicles in such a manner that they bring about the death or bodily harm of other motorists. This kind of charge also applies to anyone who has a responsibility to take care in what they are doing, such as doctors who might be drug or alcohol impaired and as a result, kill their patients who are undergoing operations.

There are many situations where these kinds of charges are applicable and certainly in my respectful opinion, any official in this blood scandal who was slow to act or careless in what he or she was doing, should have been brought to trial and made to answer for his or her crimes. That had been done in France and Japan where the bunglers in their blood scandals were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.

Now some will argue that the fact that these people didn't act in time is merely evident that they, like the rest of us are prone to human mistakes. We are all prone to making mistakes but if we know the dangers ahead of time and don't act appropriately, we can hardly hide behind the defence of ignorance.

It's true that in Canada, as is in the USA and all other countries whose laws stem from British common law, that for anyone to be convicted of a crime, there has to be evidence of criminal intent to commit the crime on their part.

But the law in respect to 'criminal negligence' puts the onus on the accused to show that he acted responsibly. For example, a parent who roughly shakes a baby and as a result, the baby dies or is severely brain damaged, cannot say that he or she didn't know the consequences to the baby as a direct result of his or her act, any more than a motorist who kills other motorists in a collision brought about by his dangerous driving can claim he too didn’t know what the consequences of his action would be.

These bungling officials all knew in advance of the dangers and still they bungled their way, year after year, death after death and then after their bungling was discovered, they wanted mercy. Did they really believe that society was in a forgiving mood? They should have been imprisoned. As it turned out, none of these Canadian bunglers went to jail.

Deterrence is a compelling factor that should have been uppermost in the minds of anyone who is aware of this terrible scandal. As it is, some of the bunglers who wasted away millions and millions of taxpayer's dollars were rewarded notwithstanding their stupidity in the Canadian Red Cross blood donation fiasco.

For example, on Dec. 12, 1995, LifeTECH Corporation, a development stage biotechnology company developing proprietary technology for blood sterilization, announced that Dr. Roger Perrault, President of the Industrial Biotechnology Association of Canada, was elected a director. Walter J. Dermott, President and Chief Executive Officer, made the announcement, saying "We are honored to welcome Dr. Perrault to the Board. His extensive experience with the Canadian Red Cross, blood treatment and blood related research will be invaluable to LifeTECH's development and commercialization of its Sterizone(TM) technology for the sterilization of blood and other biological fluids. As an international expert in haematology, he will make significant contributions to the LifeTECH team "

In my opinion, Dr. Perrault's experience with blood related research with the Canadian Red Cross had much to be desired.

I have sometimes dreamed that when the Day of Judgment dawns and the conquerors, lawyers, statesmen and doctors who bungled their way through life and were rewarded for their bungling nevertheless, approach the Pearly Gates to receive their heavenly rewards ... the Almighty, when he sees them heading towards those Gates, will turn to Peter and say, not without a certain hint of sarcasm in his voice, “Look, they need no rewards….they got their rewards on Earth.”

COURT DECISION
In October 2006, an Ontario Superior Court judge acquitted Dr. Roger Perrault of any wrongdoing in this terrible blunder. Madam justice Mary Lou Benotto determined that Dr. Perrault's conduct in this matter was reasonable, responsible and professional. She also acquitted four other defendants, three physicians and an American pharmaceutical company.

I don't intend to try and second guess as to how she arrived at that decision but it is unfortunate that no-one could be held criminally responsible for the 3000 deaths that came about because of the stupid blunders of all these professionals involved in this fiasco.