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
-
-
Replying to @Alembisque
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alembisque
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Alembisque
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. >>
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @Alembisque
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @Alembisque
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY
Perhaps the areas of mitigation are where the blame truly lays.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think my other reply kind of covers this point too...
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.