Is that ‘failure’ deliberate, to cause harm? Or in itself due to inexperience and limited knowledge? The Dunning-Kruger effect, along with lack of awareness of importance of features or effects. That’s exactly why juniors must be appropriately supervised
-
-
That is another point at issue, and one hotly debated. ‘Culpable Homocide’, etc, indicates intent to harm, specifically to exclude cases where inadvertent misjudgements, errors of knowledge or skill, etc- much more in tune with realities of human function, ability and limitation.
-
English law still views humans function similar to machine or computer, in binary- either does or doesn’t, right or wrong, Black or white. Little allowance for adaptation under different conditions, environments or backgrounds.
-
And so errors of judgement, variations and adaptations to circumstances, or being forced beyond limitations are judged as on the same black side as intention to cause harm...
-
hell I know cases where 1 omission in a cascade of events has contributed to adverse outcome- any Dr that says otherwise is either lying or blind to own performance
-
Not sure I see it that way - sorry. 1 omission in isolation seems unlikely to result in GNM charges. That wouldn't clear the very high legal bar of 'truly exceptionally bad', best I can tell. Esp with Bolam built in to GNM law. More likely that'd be mere negligence. A civil case
-
People keep pushing the "one trivial error" thing, even though the criminal trial and the several appeals mention several severe errors.
-
Over a prolonged period, I agree. The denial of the criminal conviction borders on undermining the courts sometimes.
-
The criminal conviction happened. As Gordon might say, "Get over it".
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.