Unscreened blood caused ‘hep C’ scandal

Donal O’Driscoll’s argument about blood donation (February 19) doesn’t make sense.

Every person is at risk of contracting a condition that can be transferred through bodily fluids.

How often do we hear about the ‘stupidity’ of a woman who gets pregnant the ‘first time’, or who thinks because she is on the pill the man doesn’t need to wear a condom, as if pregnancy was the only risk?

Not to mention the moronic men who make the pathetic claim that they can’t have sex if they have to wear a condom.

It was previous low standards, and poor professionalism, in the blood-donation service that led to the hepatitis C scandal, because blood was not screened.

It would beggar belief that, in 2015, anyone could go to a blood clinic, donate, and that the blood would then be passed to a recipient without being screened for everything.

I wonder how a recipient would respond if they were told the blood transfusion they were about to receive had not been screened for a communicable condition, because the donor looked like a nice person and ticked a few boxes on a form, so there was no need to complete a screen.

I doubt they’d be so keen to go ahead with the transfusion, and, given the blood-transfusion service’s historic failures, I wouldn’t have thought screening was an area where any corners should be cut.

Desmond FitzGerald

Canary Wharf

London