That is what they said isn't it, that in the tribunal, as opposed to the trial, she submitted her eportfolio reflection.
-
-
The word ‘may’ is critical. If we accept that errors vary dramatically in significance, then “21 errors” is meaningless. Only by knowing exactly what those errors were (or having them explained by a trusted expert) can we answer Kate’s question.
-
I agree with the last part - hence my desire for the transcript to be published. I think the word 'may' simply helps distinguish speculation from assumption in this instance.
-
The word ‘may’ signals uncertainty, not assumption.
-
I agree. The 'may' here is what avoids it being assumption and introduces the uncertainty required to instead be viewed as just speculation.
-
Yes, he was pointing out the speculative nature of Kate’s question.
-
Indeed. And I'm pointing out the equally speculative nature of his reply. We need that transcript!
-
Kate’s speculation is an established fact! We only need the transcript if we are attempting a complete retrial. We can identify and discuss general issues without needing to reach a verdict on any particular case.
-
If attempts should emerge to try and change something about the law as a result of this case, then I do think we need the transcript. Retrial or not.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly. These threads are extraordinary. Weaving in and out of speculation, exaggeration, arrogance and accusation. We don't know.
-
Look back to the beginning. Speculative question to clinicians about 21 errors we know no details of. I only answered to point that out.
-
It is speculative. Im amazed in all of this debate about the correctness of decision to convict and strike off nobody has actually known what the 21 errors were and how serious - individually or cumulatively- they are. Aren’t they listed somewhere?Some (not all) are in judgments
-
Exactly. We just don't know. So many doctors saying they would have done the same in Dr BG's circumstances is bizarre and very scary.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No John. I'm arguing for the difficulty of knowing the exact nature of 21 mistakes as a basis for speculating about them. In the way Kate suggested.
-
It's a great point
@katemasters67 makes about the 21 'mistakes'. I've put in quotes because if not published; do we know for sure that they (all) happened based on candour experiences of many of us? But based on personal medical experience 21 'oversights' sounds 'routine' normal.
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.