It is my strong believe that @gmcuk’s actions will do untold damage to patient safety by fostering fear & distress among junior doctors, plus forcing us into refusing to work in conditions of unsafe staffing, for fear of prosecution. Truly appalling when rota gaps rife.https://twitter.com/shaunlintern/status/956477513680719872 …
-
-
The issue was the original case findings. Once that (in my view wrong) decision had been made the rest sadly follows.
-
I entirely agree. If any good is to come from this, I suspect it will be in the debate around what mitigating evidence is brought to bear when defending clinicians. One could be forgiven for thinking someone doesn't want a court ruling that unsafe staffing levels caused a death?
-
It seemed amazing that the internal investigation with its multiple findings wasn’t evidence within the case. Of course that would make organisations nervous about being open. Rather like doctors and reflections!
-
I think for the sake of all, it's a question that needs to be explored. If I were a doctor in this position, I'd expect my defence lawyer to raise anything which might offer mitigation. If still convicted, so be it. But did they? I still don't know.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/956504488357056517 …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
What I really can’t get my head around is how a ‘Junior Doctor’ is hung drawn and quartered for clinical decisions /lack of - even though the grossly abnormal blood results were communicated to and written down by Consultant in charge (apparently) ??
-
I think that particular point has had a few people scratching their heads over it for a while. As many questions as answers are raised by this case.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Then the consultant should be held accountable also
-
That's a separate, but equally valid point to raise. I know you're not the first to mention that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think that is a reasonable point, and one that the GMC made at the MPTS (the independent arbiter) hearing. The MPTS felt on balance that the arguments for suspension outweighed those of erasure.
-
Reminds me of
@PrivateEyeNews Ian Hislop’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry: What’s the point of an independent arbiter, if the defeated party is only going to take it to the courts. -
Whilst so understand the point you're making, I'm not sure it's so different from a patient taking issue with an 'independent' decision of the PHSO and taking them to judicial review. Is this not about recognising the court's decision as being superior to any MPTS has made?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Courts of law, appear fickle, somewhat random: A female driver hit a 70 year old male legally-road-compliant, cyclist called Michael Mason. But no charges were made against her. Driver’s actions, inattention?, did result in a death.. Law seems inconsistent in value of life?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.