Totally bizarre. As the article said “without legal precedent.” But what does this have to do with the opinion piece I posted?
-
-
Replying to @KaanthanJ @OrthoBanter and
I'm trying to understand where the borders of criminal prosecution and being struck off lie. Do doctors think he should have been prosecuted, or would regulatory action have been sufficient? Should he be struck off, or would temporary restrictions be enough?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanBeale1 @OrthoBanter and
It’s debatable. In this scenario we have a consultant wholly responsible for the care of the patient in front of them, committing a conscious act of assault. I’d be surprised if there was no criminal prosecution (and there should be). 1/n
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @KaanthanJ @DanBeale1 and
So what if they are degrees to the MPTS and can show a capacity to remediate? Should they be allowed to return to practice at some point? My feeling is that because they were the consultant, and because this is unprecedented, there’s...2/n
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @KaanthanJ @DanBeale1 and
...not really any way to measure ‘capacity to remediate’ because the act in question is so bizarre. So you could argue erasure is warranted because there’s no ‘evidenced’ way to remediate, this GMC protecting the public etc. 3/3
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KaanthanJ @DanBeale1 and
Anyway, what did you think of the opinion piece
@DanBeale1?1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KaanthanJ @OrthoBanter and
I'm grateful that the piece says she made errors, and those errors contributed to a child's death, while also talking about the wider system problems. Some drs have tried to say she made no errors (or, worse, "The mother did it").
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @DanBeale1 @KaanthanJ and
I'm mildly disappointed it doesn't mention the DNR, which wasn't a factor in causing death but was seen at trial as being indicative of the care the child received.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanBeale1 @KaanthanJ and
Oh read I the transcript as saying it was recognised that by the time he arrested it would not have been possible to save him.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @StephenMakin @KaanthanJ and
I'm looking at this bit, which says "no material or causative impact", but was "said to be indicative of the degree of attention or care that Jack was receiving". This para has been a bit of a hot button.pic.twitter.com/HD8HeKy6vN
3 replies 2 retweets 2 likes
That phrase reminds me a little of the old line; 'The procedure went well but unfortunately the patient died'. A surprisingly common conclusion, that errors had no effect on the overall outcome, apparently?
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.