Had it not been for a local media report about an unfortunate AIDS victim's troubles in receiving compensation, many of us would not be aware of the much broader tragedy that lies beneath. More than 80 patients who underwent blood transfusions between 1996 and 1997 in a hospital in Daye, Hubei province, have been found HIV positive. It has been confirmed that there was a link between the infections and blood transfusions.

Like other AIDS victims, the 38-year-old man has been given free treatment that was sponsored by the government. But his damages claim has not been satisfied because the hospital contends he has asked for more than what is affordable.

To everybody's relief, his family has remained safe, though the infection 12 years ago had not been discovered until September. Some less fortunate have spread the incurable virus to their spouses or children. But the incident has permanently debilitated the family's core breadwinner and thus deprived it of many hopes for the future. The subsequent damages are in some ways beyond repair.

The hospital, for its use of contaminated blood, is obliged to financially compensate for the damages it inflicted. But it is obviously beyond the small local hospital's capability to compensate all victims to their satisfaction. So the hospital's offer is to pay what it can afford.

From a practical perspective, for those desperately in need of immediate solutions in particular, getting something is better than nothing. That is how some similar cases have previously been concluded.

But this is unfair. Pegging compensation according to the financial competence of the person or institution at fault has many negative consequences, the most devastating being acquiescence of dereliction.

First and foremost, we are not talking about an isolated incident, though some people have consistently tried to see it that way. There are no reliable statistics about AIDS infections from blood transfusions. But we have seen reports of infections scattered across the country. In spite of high-profile campaigns to rectify blood sources, news of contaminations keep popping up.

There are many reasons for this. The first, which we believe is the most egregious, is negligence on the hospital's part. Except for making them pay dearly, we see no alternative to helping them become truly responsible. And unless our hospitals are held legally responsible for the unfortunate medical incidents, every one of us is a potential subject of negligence.

The affordability conundrum is not a deadlock as it appears. Since public hospitals are financed in part by the government, and the latter collects revenue from the hospitals, it should not remain an outsider. We are not proposing compensation in the name of the State. Hospitals are not State organs. But a special fund consisting of contributions from the hospital as well as local and central governments may be a viable way to finance compensation for medical incidents. And this fund should be independent of regular medical insurance.