@drcmday watched GMC v Bawa-Garba in High Court and has written a blog about the way the GMC chose to argue the case against a junior doctor convicted of manslaughter for a medical error in the context of multiple system failures & errors from other staff
http://54000doctors.org/blogs/whose-interests-are-the-gmc-really-trying-to-serve-in-the-bawa-garba-case.html …
Quick point: No mention of mistakenly stopping CPR?
Longer point: GMC have no influence over Dr #BawaGarba's lawyers, so surely all this mitigation will have been raised in her defence during original trial? Were the jury just unmoved?
-
-
And 2 more questions, if I may Chris: "GMC accepted that not all doctors who are convicted of gross negligence manslaughter should be struck off." > Accepted because of what argument? > Are there currently any clinicians still registered, who have been convicted of this charge?
-
From what the GMC stated in court it would indicate that there are doctors with manslaughter convictions that a FTP panel found no impairment of FTP going forward or after a sanction such as suspension. That's what makes their actions with Dr
#BawaGarba all the more concerning. -
Wow. So everybody's going crazy about insisting 1 doctor must be struck off for being convicted of manslaughter, but there are others who previously haven't been? So where was the coverage of those cases? Did I miss them?
-
Sorry Anne, it's only just dawned on me that you're referring to the Dr Freda Mulhem case. Just a 12 month suspension by GMC there. Why is that manslaughter conviction any less damaging to public confidence than
#BawaGarba, one wonders? -
15 years ago the landscape was much less adversarial, legalistic, and dare I say blaming Recently the default has become that the doctor is at fault until proven otherwise. Perhaps .
@jeremy_hunt as Our Dear Leader for most of that time might know why this change has occurred -
You could argue that I'm a part of that 1st paragraph shift. Though not by choice, I promise you. But the 2nd paragraph would not be in keeping with my experience I'm afraid. On the contrary in fact. Whatever's changed, I haven't felt it yet.
-
I’ve been around long enough to qualify as a cynical old mare. I imagine a black Muslim female dr who failed in her duty to save a cute white child is doomed in the ‘court of public opinion’. Which the GMC is obliged to take account of, under the euphemism ‘public confidence’
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The stopped CPR was a mess, but clearly said in the court documents to not have affected outcome Sadly when arrest occurs in context of sepsis or any other critical illness CPR rarely works Medics concerned mitigating Trusts report on system errors was not presented to court
-
And we're sure the points raised in the Trust's report, (if not the report itself), were not also raised in court by her legal team, are we? I struggle to understand why not tbh, if so. 1/2
-
Re CPR, I appreciate what was found in court & I defer to your knowledge re sepsis etc. We know this finding will be medical expert guided tho & I just can't get the old line 'The procedure went well but unf the pt died' out of my head when I read it. May be unfair of me. 2/2
-
CPR and Defibrillation works well in Coronary Care patients, on a monitor, who have a temporary electrical problem after an otherwise survivable heart attack Sadly it usually does not work in patients dying from other non-survivable critical illnesses.
-
Then it sounds like it is unfair of me. Forgive me - it's a pattern of language that's difficult to ignore once you've been on the receiving end of it. Enough said...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The lawyers were forbidden from making any argument about system wide errors in the trust at trial.
-
Forbidden by whom, may I ask?
-
Not sure. Whoever forbids things, the judge? I guess the prosecution will have out forward a motion that it not be admissible and the judge agreed. (We don't have the court documents and my only knowledge of law stuff is from American TV.)
-
I'm not sure on what basis seemingly valid mitigation would be ruled inadmissible tbh? Imagine only a judge has such power. I think we'd all benefit from seeing the original trial transcripts some time.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I understand there's a review of regulators on the horizon Anne? So let's not forget protecting themselves there too. Timing relative to this case being pursued hasn't gone unnoticed by some.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
You may be right Anne. Wouldn't be the first time. But that doesn't mean GMC don't fear what's coming over that horizon. Does them no harm to appear tough on headline cases now, just in case they're accused of being soft later.
End of conversation
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.