1 April 2022: Perry - A

They say the devil is in the detail. They also say we need to check the small print. Without speculating who "they" might be, this morning with Dr Perry saw Counsel drill further down on some very small print on labels and product information leaflets. I wonder if the humble typesetter who printed these documents ever thought that his or her efforts would one day become the subject of such scrutiny. It does appear that the clinicians and fractionators did have some thought for future inspection with potentially litigation implications, since they were prepared to quibble down to an individual choice of adjective. Dr Perry does appear at times to be scrabbling around for a flotation device to cling to. It was almost with glee (or relief) that he could suggest a particular apparent date stamp related to the date of the production of the label and not production of the product it was stuck to. Hmmm.

The choice of label words seem to have been minimal considering they were meant to be part of a "warning". My idea of a warning is a lot different. When a building is on fire, you tend not to shout without too much warning that "by the way, things might get a bit warm". The idea that the label text was for patients and clinicians has now been dropped, it seems, since patients would not be sufficiently informed to appreciate the nuance of euphemistic wording that did not clarify how infections were virtually unavoidable. However, the prescribing clinician would know this. Thus the previous examples of "victim blaming" have been transposed to "doctor blaming"; after all, they should have known better.

In an attempt to spread the culpability further, the internationally revered encyclopedia was used as a source of wording. So that's "lexicographer blaming" too. However, the fact that the wording used was not exactly as contained by the encyclopaedic entries of the etymologists, then that rather bursts the bubble since the PFC label writers allowed themselves editorial executive powers. We have to assume they were confident enough to override received expressive wisdom when it came to their specific activities. Oh, and then there was the little gem of irony that Dr Perry ended up working on that self-same encyclopedia at a later date. So the paradigm of restricting the descriptive language would be maintained. I wonder if any producers will finger Dr Perry as the reason for a lack of candour?

Faced with the possibility of having not been specific enough in the words used about risks, Dr Perry backed away from this by citing how things like this were done in the industry. So, "peer blaming". Prof Ludlum pops his head up again as an example of a using clinician who resisted explicit language on warnings. Why so? Does that count as "devil blaming"?

It seems to have become a game of pass the parcel. The licensing authority didn't want certain language, the clinicians didn't, the language gurus didn't go down that route, the whole industry was opposed to telling the full truth to patients it seems. And then there is the "pedantic" position of the "there was no evidence" trope coming up again. The way "the system worked" was maybe appearing to be complacent, but that was the way it was, says Dr Perry as he sinks back into his chair as the actual Chair is left to assess the veracity of this assessment. Jenni got Dr Perry on the run. Hey Lord Penrose, read 'em and weep as you watch a proper Inquiry getting to the actual truth. Shame on you too.

In all this caution by manufacturers, suppliers, purchasers, and prescribers, because there was "no evidence" to justify being explicit. Eh, what about the Precautionary Principle? Nobody who knew at the time was denying the growing inevitability of blood borne virus transmission. Following the "logic", if they had waited until there was indisputable proof of infectivity, many more people would be dead. But because of this lack of ultimate proof, they let the cat out of the bag for long enough that sufficient of us were irreparably harmed.

On the matter of not wanting to stress out patients by including scary warnings, I have to point out to Dr Perry that getting a life-threatening and life-limiting virus creates a lot more stress, and more than stress. Dr Perry is a dead man walking. He admitted there were many warning bells, but it was a paternalistic system at that time. The PFC did the best with the available information at the time. He's drowning.