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.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
I'm afraid I cannot agree. You cannot have a universal duty of care when you don't hold all of the competencies or availabilities to deliver it. This is not a test at the level of gross vs not gross. This is a test at the level of how capable a duty could be delivered...
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
...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...
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
...the assessment of gross, and therefore the definition of the crime itself is also left to the jurors, which seems wrong. But the idea that a balanced assessment of individual culpability is properly explored against the systemic culpability is wrong...
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
...to truly know what the system contribution was, and therefore what the individual culpability is, requires a very thorough judicial exploration of the system & at the very least an independent one. Anything less allows the corporation & hierarchy to scapegoat the individual...
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
...and it is quite impossible and totally unrealistic to expect a defence team to be able to run that investigation through themselves, compelling organisational openness.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @GrumpyOldDoc and
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:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @DrJimboNHS and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @DrJimboNHS and
But as I’ve suggested previously, it’s entirely possible to be personally grossly negligent, even if placed in an environment that is inadequate. >
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
How would you define gross negligence in a GP forced by circumstances to do 5min appointments with no recourse to safer appointment timings?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I wouldn't. The jury would decide if there was any breach at all, given the circumstances and if so, medical experts would then help them determine if that breach amounted to gross negligence.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
You're a juror now. How? Where's your lowest threshold for gross in that setting?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.