...at the moment the assessment is merely one of principle. In principle does that duty exist. The pragmatic reality is that in these overstretched over burdened environments, it is deeply compromised before you even step in there...
-
-
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 -
-
-
We know an intensivist gave expert testimony for the prosecution. That is to say someone more senior who works in the most highly controlled, highly staffed environment judging a trainee who clearly wasn't. Not a fair judge IMHO.
-
Sounds like the defense team could have benefited from your advice when doing their cross-examination.
-
Indeed. The defence will have had chance to present their own choice of expert witnesses too, of course. As well as cross examine this one.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Tell me what body of medical evidence says such understaffing is safe? What body of evidence says what degree of cognitive fade is permissible? None and none would be my humble suggestions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.