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
-
-
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @dr_shibley
Why do you feel it needs to be deliberate, to cause harm? Is that because you're thinking of Scottish law, which I understand includes intent in its definition? An inclusion which I don't believe appears in English law.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @dr_shibley
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @dr_shibley
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
People keep pushing the "one trivial error" thing, even though the criminal trial and the several appeals mention several severe errors.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Over a prolonged period, I agree. The denial of the criminal conviction borders on undermining the courts sometimes.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yet the courts are looking at a single instant, a single outcome- MPTS have then to decide whether that poses an ongoing threat enough for that Dr to be permanently unsafe. They are 2 separate issues, separate considerations, separate evidence requirements and interpretations
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Actually, it's more than that. They also have a duty to maintain public confidence in the profession, as well as assessing her fitness to practise. The former being at the heart of the current appeal.
-
-
Indeed. But GMC obliged to explain & promote consistent messages about role of Drs, and their limitations so that people can make informed decisions about confidence. But GMCs confused and conflation of guilt on a single episode with ongoing safety- no wonder public confused
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.