few non-medical will have followed the details as even the Panorama piece, balanced though it was, was not able to give all the background. There are many issues from the top to the bottom and into the public space where the media has a responsibility. Sorry to state the obvious
-
-
-
The Panorama piece didn't scratch the surface and I'm not left with the same 'balanced' feeling you obviously were. But the public aren't daft. We know what GNM is and whether or not we want a child of ours treating by a doctor convicted of it. Public confidence is the issue now.
-
The balance came from allowing voices to be heard and beyond that it would take a full independent, if there is such a thing, inquiry. The system closed ranks for sure as it has done many times worsened by fear of litigation and reputation.
-
You'll get no argument from me on the system closing ranks. That's apparent. But I'm afraid Jack's mum and dad vs multiple clinicians and a clinical interviewer... well. Didn't really scream balanced to me. Nobody else speaking on their behalf? At all? Hmmm...
-
True, but at one level their story is simple. Their very much loved boy died and for them he would still be alive if a 'competent' doctor had been on duty to make the right decisions. Why that was not so is a different and complex story having many layers. From government down.
-
It's the NHS. There are always multiple complexities we can debate. But this needn't be complex and getting distraught parents to tell their own story has clear benefits, but equally clear drawbacks. As to 'why that was not so' the courts have examined that & found BG guilty. >>
-
The Adcock's have done their part. This was about MPTS's conclusion that public confidence is unaffected by having docs with GNM convictions practising. GMC disagreed. Courts backed MPTS. You think the Adcocks are the best Panorama could find to talk on that subject? No lawyers?
-
It was only 30mins when it needed a much longer.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The judgement is as much an indictment of the hospital and a failing health care system due to understaffing and failure to carry out root and branch reform as of one doctor's failings in face of clinical overload
-
I agree the trust has a lot of questions to answer and should be held to account. But I'm not sure this judgement tells us much more than the fact that MPTS can't easily be overruled by the Courts.
-
Had this been an industrial event investigated by HSE I suspect corporate manslaughter charges might have resulted.
-
I'm inclined to agree. But no hospital has ever been charged with it, I gather. And the police case has been closed against Leicester. Looking at GNM law, I don't think it automatically excuses BG, but she shouldn't have been the only one answerable for sure, imho.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ex-clinician John, so less COI. Completely understand your perspective, though don’t entirely agree. Genuine question: why is there not a huge push for corporate manslaughter charges against the trust?
-
Be genuinely interested to know what you disagree with John - I know you and I are rarely off the same page normally. I'd certainly join any push for those charges though - did you catch my reply to
@doctorcaldwell's letter? I mention it in there actually. -
I have hesitated to get into this on here. A lot of doctors have been intemperate in their comments, imo. Also reluctant to add to the Adcocks’ pain.
-
Perhaps all could now unite on what I believe most would agree on. 1) The consultant’s actions were never called to account. 2) The actions, omission & commission, of the trust were utterly reprehensible & they need to be called to account
-
That's all easy to agree with, absolutely. No thought required.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This isn’t connected specifically to yesterdays ruling - it was completed before it but was shared with clinicians, whistleblowers, patients & families : 91% negative : 9%% positivepic.twitter.com/YonKAoVWbx
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
-
I'm amazed they managed to muster 9% positive, tbh. The medical world wouldn't know what regulation was if it bit them on the arse. I was looking for the 'Part of the problem' option. ;-)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Surveys?The Sun once had a survey on a trainee who they libelled as ‘Dr Evil’ on Page 1 ,w/ a headline a few days later ‘would you want to be treated by a doctor who had been charged w/ terrorism.”(he’d been cleared). Successfully sued 4 libel but not B4 having to move job..
-
That's right David, surveys. A means to ascertain public opinion on a given subject. Subjects such as whether they feel they can still retain confidence in the medical profession now it's obvious it allows clinicians to continue practising despite having GNM convictions.pic.twitter.com/G7dngjenaJ
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.