Is the place for that discussion nearly 8 years down the line?
-
-
Replying to @katemasters67 @VictorAdcock2 and
Is it OK to avoid important discussions just because 8 years have gone by?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Unfortunately, such disbelief is part of why there is collusion, other Doctors or those working in other areas simply can’t believe what been told, so nothing changes. I suspect that’s why situations highlighted at Mid Staffs keep happening, not just ignoring, but incredulity
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
100% agree. Tell doctors it was her 1st day back after maternity leave, no consultant cover, system issues unaddressed in court, SUI report not allowed in evidence etc etc & they'll understandably be alarmed. When the truth emerges, focus should be on those who made such claims.
1 reply 5 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @katemasters67 and
And will you be able to do that John? Can you share that information?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @C7RKY and
Perhaps that very statement is testament to pre-existing bias before reading transcripts. Key to balanced view is awareness and questioning of your own biases. Do you think able to do that? Or consider counter-arguments in their own right as bias challenges, not personal attacks?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I've tried to focus on the facts and the evidence all the way through. My early impression is that some have been less concerned by such matters and have very much allowed their bias to be front and centre in their portrayal. I hope it all gets released in the fullness of time.
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.