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
-
-
For which I am prosecuted. £1000 minimum fine for defective eyesight. The Dr who had been assessing the development of my cataracts said they were"not ready for surgery" nor did they inform DVLA. I insisted on a referral, and they were very ready.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Cataracts done and back on the road six months later driving competently, I trust. Two levels of competence, the system for not referring me and me for having an accident whilst my eyesight is impaired. The public might be alarmed nay horrified that this had happened, but......
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
would not be unduly alarmed at me returning to the roads. OK the difference in magnitude is very clear, but the underlying principles are similar. Now in my case I realised I had been driving with my vision impaired and took myself off the road and avoided a £1000 fine.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The level of negligence was the same even if the outcomes were different. Competence being predicated on outcomes. Within the NHS there is a massive problem with staffing and this is not the fault of the staff and we all recognise that errors of all sorts are bound to escalate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Even 'competent' staff will not be capable of holding things together and therefore be safe if the system is crumbling.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
It would be wrong to allow them to not only carry the burden of the day , but to also carry the blame for errors and inevitable increased mortality as things deteriorate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alembisque @doctorcaldwell
I must say, my first impression of all that is that much of it is a re-hash of the case for the defence. A defence that failed to convince in court. In particular, GNM is about personal culpability *in all the circumstances*.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Meaning much of what you raise should have been accounted for by the jury. I say should, because without that transcript neither of us know what they were shown by the prosecution to evidence her 21 errors, or by the defence to mitigate against them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @doctorcaldwell
Very true, but something just feels instinctively awry.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think this case has already got enough feelings attached to it to last 2 lifetimes. What we need now are facts. Facts which are contained in that transcript and are now a matter of public interest.
#ReleaseTheTranscript
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.