Part of the problem is that it will vary so much from case to case, situation to situation.
-
-
I agree. I'm interested to see what the TOR are for this review, who will be asked for their opinion etc. I have the same panicky feeling I did at Mr Hunt's attempts at expanding the safe space from HSIB to the whole of the health service.
-
Candour, or rather the utter lack of it, is at the heart of all this. I'm not confident this review is going to be established with a view to improving candour, so much as it is to ensuring doctors can't be prosecuted. And all without a transcript to know what they're defending.
-
it's not a case review but a broader look at the issue I think. Hence wanting to see the TOR. I feel very nervy about potential outcomes. Candour at the point of harm would be a great point to look at to see why manslaughter is considered and other factors might have been lost
-
Thanks for sharing. Thinking out loud: personally, I’d see candour as a reason for not prosecuting, where an oversight or unanticipated medical outcome resulted from multiple system failures? I’m all for acknowledging oversights, correcting where possible; where patient alive.
-
Candour is a powerful thing. Most people can accept "we messed up. We let you down. We are sorry and this is what we are going to do..."
-
Agree, it is the ‘we did nothing wrong, if we did it was your fault, we are not going to apologise, medics and nurses are God’s & angels & any one questioning them is mad, bad or sad & probably all three’ approach that leads to litigation.
-
Abusive and vexatious. The only 2 things mentioned in the NHS constitution which permit them to refuse access to services. Including not replying to correspondence. Is it any wonder they're so keen to affix the label to awkward complainants? The 'mad' label is the back-up plan.
-
Yes - in Scotland a health board was routinely labelling the gentlest of parents of disabled
#CYP abusive. It turned out they did it if a parent talked about their child having ‘rights’. - 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Historically it has always happened. Medics have always had deference from the courts others have not have. The outcry perhaps is that this case reflects perhaps a change in that. I suspect that change only happened here because of the gender, ethnicity & status of the doctor.
-
maybe but also because the only legal test doctors usually face is medical negligence that incorporates what their peers would have done in same situ via civil court, and criminal court is very different using a jury? (not a lawyer, just feels this way)
-
Yes, but in the past judges have directed juries not to find medics guilty, with some exceptionally deferential directions, for example suggesting that a member of a honourable profession could never behave dishonourably.
-
really? OK. did not know that. Don't want to get into the sexism/racism issues to be honest, but I do feel they exist.
-
Based on other cases rather than this one, I doubt Bawa-Garba would even have been charged if she had been a white, male, senior consultant. I think equality is central to this case, both for the patient and doctor. Juries also more likely to convict women & ethnic minorities.
-
Could explain white male '20 years a consultant' stomping around the high court like a stroppy teen like he should. It have to be there
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
ZHH We have opinions + voices too. Until Bristol did we know anything about how the NHS operated?
-
We know far too much about how the NHS really operates now Ken. That's in no small part what has led us to this point and they don't like it, imho. I'm very nervous about where this review might lead.
-
ZHH Don't worry, John; this will be a watershed, and it will be the safety of patients which shapes it, can't be otherwise
@ianmsyme
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.