I'm not sure I share your concern re the law personally, because it should individually address each person's respective guilt and claims to have done so in this case. I agree there are concerns about the consultant and the resourcing though. I'd like to see it all addressed.
-
-
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.