"For any shortcomings on the part of the Red Cross, we are deeply sorry"
CMAJ 1997;157:246
Re: "The Krever inquiry: time to drop the appeals" (CMAJ 1997;156:1401-2 [full text / résumé])
In response to: A. Normand; M. Davey, R. Perrault; F.I. Jackson
The apology from the Canadian Red Cross Society, expressed by Mr. Normand, will be welcomed by many in Canada who have felt betrayed by this noble agency. CMAJ applauds the Red Cross for publicly acknowledging its shortcomings and for taking responsibility for its actions in the early 1980s.
The Krever inquiry, like all inquiries, can use only hindsight to determine what went wrong with the Canadian blood supply in 198385. Its recommendations will, in effect, adjust the rear view of the Canadian blood supply system so that, in future, administrative and scientific decisions come closer to the mark. Our argument is simply to get on with it.
Davey and Perrault continue to defend the 198385 decisions, arguing that the present criticism of those decisions derives from a "radical, recent change in public perception of risks of transfusion." The public's perception of those risks certainly has changed, but does this mean that the faulty decision-making of public officials and medical professionals may be excused by the fact that members of the lay public were not alarmed? Moreover, in their perception of risk, members of the public have little choice but to take cues from the experts. The IOM report contains evidence that, at least in the US, deliberate efforts were made to withhold information specifically because the public was interested and would have fully appreciated the risks.
John Hoey, MD
Editor-in-Chief
CMAJ
 |
Send a letter to the editor responding to this letter
Envoyez une lettre à la rédaction au sujet de cette lettre |
Letters