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"
Morning! :) You’re right Jamie, I’m afraid we don’t agree on this area. But you raise multiple points in making your case, so let me try and cover them as best I can:
-
-
I believe the duty of care does apply to an individual in this setting, even though I do agree that the environment should be taken into account. And if this image is correct, then it appears the legal process does indeed account for it via ‘the circumstances of the defendant’ >pic.twitter.com/lsPgLN29eT
-
But as I’ve suggested previously, it’s entirely possible to be personally grossly negligent, even if placed in an environment that is inadequate. >
-
If one took a break for example and just didn’t bother coming back for a few hours, then one’s personal actions would be worthy of both blame and legal recourse for any consequences, regardless of environment.
-
Re assessing whether or not a breach has occurred, I’m happy to have jury do that personally, as it offers a societal view of that decision, not medical. But tho the jury may then also reach a decision as to whether that breach is gross, it’s worth examining that point closer >
-
In this graphic, it seems to me that someone has managed to slide a version of Bolam into criminal law, (something I’m not particularly happy to have discovered). >pic.twitter.com/kjbJxpXcwC
-
But in any event, this suggests to me that medical expert witnesses will have persuaded the jury that a reasonable body of medical opinion did NOT exist to support her actions. They didn't reach their decision unaided.
-
Despite appearances from the current partially-informed debate, it’s seemingly apparent that clinicians in court with access to the full evidence felt her actions were indeed grossly negligent. >
-
The medical world has built its own safety net into the law (perhaps explaining why there are so few prosecutions) and even that couldn’t save her. >
-
We don’t know what the mystery ‘2 systems issues’ were that the judge deemed inadmissible because of their irrelevance. We don’t know what other systems issues WERE raised in court.
-
We don’t even know the full details of her errors. 21 or otherwise. And we certainly don’t know enough at this stage to assert that the law needs changing, imho. END Over to you... :)
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.