How is suggesting they 'may have been mostly trivial errors obvious only on later scrutiny', or that they were 'likely errors of omission rather than commission in stressed system' any less speculative, David? And that's not just aimed at you, btw.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @NHSwhistleblowr and
Exactly. These threads are extraordinary. Weaving in and out of speculation, exaggeration, arrogance and accusation. We don't know.
1 reply 4 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @sarasiobhan @C7RKY and
Look back to the beginning. Speculative question to clinicians about 21 errors we know no details of. I only answered to point that out.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NHSwhistleblowr @sarasiobhan and
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
3 replies 3 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @KirstenSjovoll @Imonlyslightly and
I am amazed that the medical profession is up in arms over this conviction and no one even knows he mistakes. It is as likely that they were really bad as they were minor if no one knows in fact based on the conviction it is more likely they were serious errors.
4 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Allyncondon @KirstenSjovoll and
That's a false assumption Allyn, some of the errors are already in the public domain, and are known to be systemic - delay in acting on blood results when lab system was known to be down, to name just one.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @GrumpyOldDoc @Allyncondon and
Grumpy, we don't know the facts. We don't know if the lab system was down for 10 minutes or five hours... Why not accept we just don't know?
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @sarasiobhan @Allyncondon and
We know a lot of facts The appeal judge outlined the prosecution case below It reads like a nightmare - she is blamed for "not seeking consultant advice at any stage" then in 14 she clearly did and the consultant failed to act on results she gave him http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/76.html …
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @GrumpyOldDoc @sarasiobhan and
Judge hints at his frustration: "There was a limit to how far these issues could be explored in the trial but there may be some force in the comment that yours was a responsibility that was shared with others" Esp after BG's: "The consultant had overall responsibility for Jack"
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
That's not an assertion by BG, thats the reality of the trainee/consultant relationship across UK medicine. The judge limiting an exploration of this is incredibly worrying. Another concern for all trainees. 1 person carrying a delicate wardrobe down stairs, that 3 should. Nuts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It comes under the heading of 'Reliance was placed on the following details' when summarising her defence. I share your concern as to how the consultant's involvement went unexplored. I'd like to understand how/why.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
I think the contradiction in the extent to which many decry corporate hospital behaviour & then hold to the position that a court can somehow unravel the assessment of individual culpability as distinct from the corporation without any kind of unbiased exploration is incredible!
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
Jamie Retweeted Simon McCormick
And this is the point about how predicated the whole legal system is on attributing individual blame:https://twitter.com/DrSimonMc/status/962463337819922434?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3 …
Jamie added,
0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
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.