...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.
-
-
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 @DrJimboNHS and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @DrJimboNHS and
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 >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @DrJimboNHS and
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @DrJimboNHS and
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DrJimboNHS @C7RKY and
Sounds like the defense team could have benefited from your advice when doing their cross-examination.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.