On Sunday we revisited a 15-year-old Observer campaign for justice for the forgotten NHS Aids victims, to find out how patients who contracted HIV from contaminated NHS blood were faring today, writes Lorna Martin.
We revealed that many of those infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood in the late Seventies and early Eighties are now living in extreme poverty on state benefits and a trickle of cash from a trust fund.
At the time, the victims were urged to accept a relatively small amount of compensation and were forced to waive their right to pursue any future legal action against the government.
Our investigation has provoked a huge response. Since the piece several widows whose husbands have died after being infected with contaminated blood have contacted us.
One woman, whose husband was 32 when he died, said she could never be compensated for losing her 'soul mate', but said financial recompense would allow her to live in a similar standard as she would have if her husband was still alive.
A 32-year-old haemophiliac who was infected with HIV when he was 12 also contacted us. When he was 14, he was told he would not live to see his 21st birthday, and consequently took an aspirin overdose. Now a successful classical composer, he has never spoken publicly about his situation, but is considering doing so this weekend.
Although we focused on the financial hardship facing many survivors, everyone who contacted us said while money is important, what's more critical is an independent public inquiry.
There was an encouraging development in Scotland yesterday, when the parliament's influential health committee called for a public inquiry into the NHS failure. And this afternoon, Lord Jenkin of Roding will be asking for a government statement to explain why thousands of crucial documents relating to the scandal have been destroyed.
Many people have spoken out over this situation and pressure is building on the government to ignore the legal waiver, award more compensation, and explain what happened. Our leader column argued that the government has a moral responsibility and must increase the financial help available as a matter of urgency. What do you think?
