![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgp"A product can be as good as it is possible to make it, but the user can demand unplanned and unexpected levels of perfection and a total absence of any chance of danger - then sue the manufacturer if the product fails to live up to expectations," reports money.telegraph.co.uk.
That's the extent of the report at the Telegraph's site, as clicking on the link doesn't get you anywhere. However, fellow LJer![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
avva set forth some of the background in a recent post. It would appear that the National Blood Authority in the U.K. was sued for having allowed blood tainted by hepatitis C to be received by patients. The Authority's defense was, basically, that said patients had received the blood prior to the discovery of the virus in 1988, and that it was therefore illogical and impossible for them to be held accountable for the blood being infected with an undiscovered virus.
The court hearing the case did not concur. "Mr Justice Burton disagreed with the defense case and said the public was indeed entitled to require standards of safety far above what could be achieved with the technology of the time, and could expect blood to be totally safe."
Ye gods. If we could but apply the same standards to politicians and their policies...
Cheers...
That's the extent of the report at the Telegraph's site, as clicking on the link doesn't get you anywhere. However, fellow LJer
avva set forth some of the background in a recent post. It would appear that the National Blood Authority in the U.K. was sued for having allowed blood tainted by hepatitis C to be received by patients. The Authority's defense was, basically, that said patients had received the blood prior to the discovery of the virus in 1988, and that it was therefore illogical and impossible for them to be held accountable for the blood being infected with an undiscovered virus. The court hearing the case did not concur. "Mr Justice Burton disagreed with the defense case and said the public was indeed entitled to require standards of safety far above what could be achieved with the technology of the time, and could expect blood to be totally safe."
Ye gods. If we could but apply the same standards to politicians and their policies...
Cheers...
