Blood is central to the myths British people tell themselves. One of the many consequences of the contaminated blood scandal is that it may blow those myths apart. For if this scandal can make us face the reality of how badly we are governed, and indeed how selfishly we govern ourselves, then some good may come from so much needless suffering.
The scandal began in the 1970s. At the start of that decade, Richard Titmuss, the great social democratic theorist, placed blood at the centre of the justification for the British welfare state with an argument that complacent we Brits could not help but feel reflected rather well on us. The NHS was not just morally superior to the greedy privatised US health system, Titmuss said. It was more efficient too. Because the British believed the NHS was a moral institution, they voluntarily gave it their blood free of charge, and would never dream of donating blood if there was a chance it might be contaminated.
In the US, by contrast, the market ruled.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in