Jury! Maybe.
-
-
Amen to that.
-
Read your reply to
@doctorcaldwell. I find both letters interesting. There is a problem of cognitive dissonance from a Clapham bus perspective which is hard to dispell, but this is discrete issue in a complex web of systemic failure. -
There is an argument that had little Jack not died, but her errors were still made, at what level of negligence would they have been assessed? The perceived negligence is predicated by outcome and this is where all Drs feel the 'There but the grace' brush past their cheek.
-
I understand every word individually in your first tweet, but can't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate? And grossly negligent acts/omissions are still gross negligence, regardless of outcome. A resultant death adds manslaughter on the end of the consequence, imho.
-
Ok. In our heads we have to get round the fact that a Dr can be convicted fro gross negligence whilst still being competent particularly if there were system issues which let them down and where their actions were not due to arrogance or maliciousness. The public's mindset is ..
-
..negligence=incompetence without considering the wider picture of the system which contributed to Jack's death. There is a very strong natural underlying reaction where children are concerned which intensifies this dissonance.
-
Indeed we have no way of knowing what Jack's chance of survival was in this instance, he had been ill for a while before being brought into hospital, had the antibiotics been used from the outset in a paediatric ICU
-
Lets say I'm driving having had my eyes tested for cataracts and not been told to stop driving and the DVLA informed. True story, but thankfully this next bit didn't happen as I took myself off the road, but say had carried on driving and then had an accident
- 10 more replies
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.