I'd love to put out a survey tweet asking the public (non-clinicians) if they felt the result from the #BawaGarba case gave them confidence in the medical profession. Problem is; I'm followed by altogether far too many clinicians to get an accurate result.
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.
-
It would warrant it, given the public interest aspect, I agree, But covering any of that would've been nice. Instead we were walked through mitigation - again.
-
Perhaps the areas of mitigation are where the blame truly lays.
-
I think my other reply kind of covers this point too...
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.