Infected Blood Scandal: Families Criticize “Penalty for Dying” in Compensation Scheme

Families of victims affected by the contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom have voiced strong criticism of the government’s compensation scheme, alleging it imposes a “penalty for dying” by significantly reducing payouts to the estates of those who have already succumbed to complications from infected blood products.

Background of the Infected Blood Scandal

Between the 1970s and the early 1990s, over 30,000 people in the UK were infected with HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C through contaminated blood products, primarily factor VIII and factor IX used to treat haemophilia, or following blood transfusions after childbirth or surgery [1]. Many of these products were imported from the United States and distributed by the National Health Service [1]. More than 3,000 victims have died as a result [2].

The Compensation Scheme and its Discrepancies

The current compensation scheme provides a basic financial loss award of £12,500 to each infected person, plus an additional award to calculate loss of earnings after infection [2]. However, families of victims who died before the scheme’s implementation are only receiving compensation calculated from the date of infection until the date of death, potentially representing a fraction of the financial loss compared to those who survived [2].

Criticism from Charities and Families

Charities, including the Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Trust, have jointly expressed concerns that this approach financially penalizes individuals for dying as a result of the scandal [2]. Kate Burt, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, emphasized that every infected person deserves equal valuation, regardless of their survival status [2].

Ami Jai Presly, who lost her father, Jai Brahmbhatt, in 1993, discovered that her father’s estate would only be compensated for 16 years of financial loss, roughly half the amount it would have been had he lived to the present day [2]. She described the situation as “unethical and wrong” [2].

Rachel McGuinness, whose father died in 1990, echoed these sentiments, stating the discrepancy in compensation is “ridiculous” and an additional burden for her aging mother [2].

Ian Dixon, campaigning with his wife whose mother died in 1993 after receiving contaminated blood, highlighted the disparity between survivors and those who died, stating their lives should be equally valued [2]. He noted that his mother-in-law’s estate would receive significantly less than what a surviving infected individual would receive.

Government Response

A government spokesperson stated that the government is committed to listening to victims and ensuring justice is delivered, and is carefully considering responses to a recent consultation on the scheme [2]. A response is expected within 12 weeks of the consultation’s closing date [2].

Inquiry Outcomes

The final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry was published on May 20, 2024, concluding that the scandal was largely avoidable, patients were knowingly exposed to unacceptable risks, and that attempts were made to cover up the truth [1]. The inquiry’s work concluded on March 31, 2026 [2].