15 September 2022: Douglas (Susan) - A

Susan Douglas has had a profuse career in journalism, with the Inquiry focus being on her time as the medical correspondent for the Mail on Sunday in the early 1980s. She had some training in health issues and maintained that interest through much of her journalistic carreer. Some of her work included writing for a journal aimed at doctors.

It was briefly discussed how stories get to be included in a newspaper. Medical stories tend to be of higher general interest since health affects everyone, but the process is not standardised. There is a lot of reading up, speaking with people, checking, and more checking. The checking process for accuracy and suitability for the paper involved obtaining approval internally to pursue the proposed story which allowed various senior colleagues to discussion the story, with the journalist then facing ongoing questioning during the researching and writing, and once completed an article is subject to “the back bench” which assesses the accuracy, legality, and quality of the piece before the Editor decides what prominence and place it receives in the actual paper.

A conversation with a friend, after the witness had just started at the Mail on Sunday, concerned the big story of AIDS. The question was brought up about the possible risks to those who receive blood products in the same way it was becoming clear that it was happening with Hepatitis as a result of contaminated blood. After some initial research it became clear that there was a lot of concern about there being risks of blood transmission of AIDS in medial circles. A front page article was the end result with a focus on two people infected. Ms  Douglas had spoken with a doctor of haematology in Wales who was not Prof Bloom and was not involved in treating bleeding disorder patients. She did not initially disclose that her interest in the matter was as a journalist. Issues of US blood harvesting and UK patients being exposed to this were part of the conversation. Ms Douglas would never reveal the name of the doctor, and when she revealed her true reason for her interest, he maintained contact but insisted his name not be revealed. The situation in Switzerland, in particular the Red Cross, was used for information due to products for haemophiliacs being produced there. They said they could supply the UK, but it would be costly.

Journalists do not normally have any real influence about headlines and pictures used when their article is printed. But in this case Ms Douglas was asked her opinion. Her sense was that the “Hospitals using killer blood” headline was sensationalist, but to ensure it was read, she went along with it.

Before the article was published, the witness had a meal with Norman Fowler as part of her efforts to establish herself as a new medical journalist. Ms Douglas explained that this was quite a normal way of journalists and politicians sharing information. She says she would definitely have mentioned her work on the article. The only person she went over the whole article with was the original anonymous source, the doctor in Wales.

Dr Peter Jones complained about the article, saying it was not accurate or objective, and saying that it was causing patients to enquire about and even refuse treatment with factor products. The witness was very worried about the complaint. She was supported in responding by her Editor which included a point by point response, including citing the medical journal sources she had used to inform the writing of the article. Ms Douglas recalled the epidemic status of AIDS and the high-profile coverage causing concerning among the population. Dr Jones replied to the response letter from the paper about his initial complaint. The incident taught the witness about the central importance of checking and being sure before going to print. She felt that “the Establishment” was trying to cause her paper to censure her or censure the paper. The Mail on Sunday stood by their journalist. Other papers were happy that a scoop was being called out as wrong, since they had had to do catch-up after the initial article. This was despite them knowing there was something going on to be “sniffed” out by “the pack”. It is clearly a case of dog eat dog in journalism.

Ms Douglas wrote a follow-up article which included official information on the Government considering ending the importation of US products. An expert in the field also endorsed the view that US blood should not be used. This information would have come directly from conversations, with quotes being read back before being used. The paper sticking with their journalist allowed a swifter than usual access for Ms Douglas to her Editor. The story was becoming more of a campaign. A third article included the story of another man who had died and was not a homosexual (the key information related to AIDS back then), but rather he was a haemophiliac. An associated editorial mentioned how there appeared to be a “conspiracy of silence” on the matter of infected blood. Nobody had apparently wanted to “take up the baton” previously, and the result would be that more people would die. She felt that Government Ministers and officials, right down to their researchers, were part of the conspiracy. In response, doctors and the Haemophilia Society were seeking to reassure people that any alleged risk was far less than the risk of refusing treatment. For her art, Ms Douglas thought people had to be given the information, being opened up to about risks, while less risky alternatives were sought. Looking back, it was a massive issue since thousands of people died, which completely vindicated the stories being written and published. Not for the first time in her evidence, she made a reference to the parallels with Covid. It seemed that some doctors wanted to “play God”, while other doctors were genuinely concerned. All those who went against the official line insisted on not being named because of the pressure being put on them to “not be a panic-maker”. The original source from Wales was particularly targeted.

Eventually, the paper was congratulated for its work. The hierarchy of doctors and right up to the top of Government were covering up the issue in the opinion of the witness. Dr Jones wrote another complain letter to the Press Council. It initially upheld the complaints by Dr Jones, and this held the risk of being very damaging to the paper and the witnesses’ career. The paper sought to have the ruling lifted. The Haemophilia Society legally objected to being included as part of an alleged conspiracy of silence. Council noted that the Haemophilia Society had responded to the accusation and that response would be published by the Inquiry. After three years the complaint issue was reversed in favour of the paper. Ms Douglas explained how such censure can impact on a story, effectively causing journalists to leave it well alone and for the story to be effectively shut down. Of course, this evidence will do nothing to quell the sense of cover-up being imposed on an issue such as contaminated blood, because the experiences of the witness are archetypical of what such high-level collusion involves.

While not always fulsome in factual content, this was very damaging public evidence from the perspective of Government and the medical establishment, made worse for them by the fact that it came from a senior and respected journalist. The gloves just came off quite a bit more.

That concluded the questions prepared by Counsel, so an early break was taken to allow additional core participant questions to be gathered.