deathboy: (Default)
[personal profile] deathboy
Canada Red Cross used HIV blood (which is old news from the 80s, but it's regarding the settlement)

More than 3,000 people have died since getting the tainted blood in the 1980s.

read to the bottom...

The Red Cross now faces a fine up to C$5,000 (£2,180) and will donate C$1.5m (£654,000) towards medical research and educational scholarships.

$500 for a Canadian life?

286 GB pounds?

That's pretty cheap.

Date: 2005-05-31 12:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drreagan.livejournal.com
Well, they still face the various civil suits that are being brought against them.

Date: 2005-05-31 12:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wintershox.livejournal.com
http://www.humanforsale.com/

Date: 2005-05-31 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] im-impulsive.livejournal.com
Insert Canadian joke here.

Date: 2005-05-31 12:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gaius-octavian.livejournal.com
What's that all aboot, eh?

Date: 2005-05-31 12:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nowave.livejournal.com
I can honestly say, I wouldn't pay more than $500 for a canadian life.

Date: 2005-05-31 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bootpunk.livejournal.com
It didn't cost Atta & Co that much for 3000 American lives tho'. 19 first class Boston to LA tickets and about 4x2 months flight school lessons.

Date: 2005-05-31 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aoakley.livejournal.com
$500 for a Canadian life?
286 GB pounds?
That's pretty cheap.


Oh, the pointlessness of fining charities or government departments. All you'd be doing would be fining the donors or the taxpayers, the organisation itself isn't profitmaking, it doesn't have any money of its own, per se, so... what's the point?

Then counterbalance with the number of lives that might be saved/improved by using the money if you DIDN'T fine them.

In situations like this, management need to be held personally criminally liable, even if that liabilty is shared between several managers. I say this as a manager.

Date: 2005-05-31 02:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] adrasteah.livejournal.com
At the same time, I hate this attitude that compensation has to be paid. If someone I loved died at the hands of someone else, unless it was for my children's upkeep and future and I had no choice, I would not take one penny blood money. And if it wasn't malicious, I wouldn't want to take part in financially crippling a charity that does far more good than harm.

Date: 2005-05-31 02:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madkatsjournal.livejournal.com
if $5,000 = £2,180 then how does $500 = £286?

Date: 2005-05-31 04:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chevarie.livejournal.com
im canadian :/

moving to usa in a few months however. i dont see whats wrong with canada.

Date: 2005-05-31 08:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] failed-bard.livejournal.com
As I remember the case, the only reason they were held liable was because they knew there was the possibility that some of the blood was tainted, but lacked the means at the time to determine which were safe.

Their only option would have been to dump all the blood, and then most of those people would have died at the time.

The last statistic I heard was that the hemopheliacs were 3% of the blood users, but 90% of the consumption. They would have had to dent all of them access to blood in order to keep the supply their for emergency use. Since this is illegal under the health act, the people handling the blood decided to take their chances.

I didn't follow it right to the conclusion, so how I remember it might be off a bit.

wwm.

Date: 2005-05-31 09:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-siobhan.livejournal.com
Oddly enough, I worked at one of the labs that was being subpoenaed for the Krever Inquiry when that was going on. And now I work at Canadian Blood Services, who took over the blood supply after the Red Cross got fired from the job.

Did I tell you about the time we got some eyeballs by mistake?
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 08:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios