How is this possibly right?
Discussion
RYH64E said:
I don't think the NHS should be liable for compensation under any circumstances. They provide a free service (paid for by those of us who actually pay tax), and mistakes sometimes happen. Mistakes made in hospitals tend to have serious consequences, but s
t happens. They're trying to help, ofTen under difficult circumstances, and sometimes make mistakes. The alternative is to not even try to help for fear of prosecution.
You do realise they're insured, don't you? Just like a mechanic or a builder or anyone else who might do work on your behalf that ends up resulting in serious injury or death as a result of their negligence?t happens. They're trying to help, ofTen under difficult circumstances, and sometimes make mistakes. The alternative is to not even try to help for fear of prosecution. If medical staff are negligent, the compensation doesn't actually get docked from their next pay packet! Sure, they might lose their job, but frankly if someone has caused death or serious injury through negligence or incompetence, I don't actually want them doing the job!!!
There's a big difference between a risky procedure where you're warned before they start of the chances of success or of someone dying from their illness/injuries in spite of the best efforts of the medical teams and someone being severely injured or killed as a result of a routine procedure being performed wrongly or badly.
I suspect that there are plenty of people who might profess to share your opinion until it happens to them. When it does, I suspect that SBDJ is in a very, very small minority in remaining in that position. The overwhelming majority of people in this situation aren't trying to claim a millionaire lifestyle; they're just trying to maintain as much of a normal life as they can, despite that "normal" life now costing them several hundred thousand pounds (if not millions) more than it otherwise would've done. How is that possibly unreasonable?
Kermit power said:
You do realise they're insured, don't you? Just like a mechanic or a builder or anyone else who might do work on your behalf that ends up resulting in serious injury or death as a result of their negligence?
Why are you referring to individuals when I was referring to the NHS in general? I never for one moment suggested that compensation was deducted from doctors pay, but it does reduce the amount of money the NHS has available to treat other sick people.If you're ill and think that you have a better chance of recovery without going to hospital then don't go, but if you do decide to seek help it seems to me to be very ungrateful to sue those trying to help you if they make a mistake.
RYH64E said:
Kermit power said:
You do realise they're insured, don't you? Just like a mechanic or a builder or anyone else who might do work on your behalf that ends up resulting in serious injury or death as a result of their negligence?
Why are you referring to individuals when I was referring to the NHS in general? I never for one moment suggested that compensation was deducted from doctors pay, but it does reduce the amount of money the NHS has available to treat other sick people.If you're ill and think that you have a better chance of recovery without going to hospital then don't go, but if you do decide to seek help it seems to me to be very ungrateful to sue those trying to help you if they make a mistake.
Would you decide not to claim on the insurance of a driver who made a mistake which left you in a wheelchair for life? This situation is no different. The driver didn't set out to cause you the injury. They didn't feel any malice towards you. They were just trying to get through life with a modicum of happiness, just like everyone else. You're still in a wheelchair for life because of their mistake.
My daughter is in her final year at med school and has had to take out personal insurance since the first day she started. There is a differance between a claim on the Doctor directly and the hospital. My wife is high in the NHS and others on here have suggested a pot of money is put on one side for negligance claims, it is not. It comes out of the genral budget that each hospital has and any claim means that there is less money available.
Technology has made things worse in some ways and better in many others. Nature used to decide the fate of people, babies were born with defects and lived or died. Babies that were born early on in the term usually did not survive but now a small baby can be delivered with a birth derfect and artifically kept alive where nature would not have allowed it.
But now we have the technology most mums want a perfect child and when given a choice the vast majority will chose aborting if there are indications of potential problems. I make no judgement on these difficult decisions.
The case of the dead twin mentioned on here, for which you have my admiration for dealing with the problems this has now brought your life along with the undoubted joy. Had that have happened when there were no scans, how would they have known of a problem? The first that there would have been any knowledge would have been the day of birth I suspect.
Had they have found the problem would it have made a differance and could they remove the dead feotus leaving the other to grow healthy?
Where there has been a genuine mistake as a result of a judgment call, that is one thing, where there has been criminal negligance that is another. Many cannot differentiate between the two.
I still feel that moneis from the NHS should only be paid to provide care needed or to replace lost living costs, money for hurt feelings should not be.
My neighbour has just had a huge cyst removed and whilst in theater the surgeon nicked his kidney, he had to go back in for remedial work. He is now on the mend, when he told some of our neighbours it was, "I hope you are sueing them for that" he is not as he is grateful to be alive and see's that it was a simple error, but these are what I would descriped as educated middle class people whose first thought was how much money he could get in compensation, a sad reflection.
But back to the main story, nothing I have read or seen makes me feel that the woman is not being unfairly treated at all.
Technology has made things worse in some ways and better in many others. Nature used to decide the fate of people, babies were born with defects and lived or died. Babies that were born early on in the term usually did not survive but now a small baby can be delivered with a birth derfect and artifically kept alive where nature would not have allowed it.
But now we have the technology most mums want a perfect child and when given a choice the vast majority will chose aborting if there are indications of potential problems. I make no judgement on these difficult decisions.
The case of the dead twin mentioned on here, for which you have my admiration for dealing with the problems this has now brought your life along with the undoubted joy. Had that have happened when there were no scans, how would they have known of a problem? The first that there would have been any knowledge would have been the day of birth I suspect.
Had they have found the problem would it have made a differance and could they remove the dead feotus leaving the other to grow healthy?
Where there has been a genuine mistake as a result of a judgment call, that is one thing, where there has been criminal negligance that is another. Many cannot differentiate between the two.
I still feel that moneis from the NHS should only be paid to provide care needed or to replace lost living costs, money for hurt feelings should not be.
My neighbour has just had a huge cyst removed and whilst in theater the surgeon nicked his kidney, he had to go back in for remedial work. He is now on the mend, when he told some of our neighbours it was, "I hope you are sueing them for that" he is not as he is grateful to be alive and see's that it was a simple error, but these are what I would descriped as educated middle class people whose first thought was how much money he could get in compensation, a sad reflection.
But back to the main story, nothing I have read or seen makes me feel that the woman is not being unfairly treated at all.
If anyone doesn't think that there is a problem with medical negligence claims just google 'medical negligence solicitor', there are thousands of them out there sucking money out of the NHS. Medical negligence claims are to the NHS what whiplash claims are to the car insurance industry.
I doubt any sensible person would deny the possiblility or reality of fraudulent or frivolous, unnecessary or overblown claims or actions against the NHS. Clearly there must be rules and procedures to protect the NHS. To claim that there should not be any possiblity of any redress whatsoever against the NHS for its actions or inactions under any circumstances, however, is wrong IMO.
RYH64E said:
If anyone doesn't think that there is a problem with medical negligence claims just google 'medical negligence solicitor', there are thousands of them out there sucking money out of the NHS. Medical negligence claims are to the NHS what whiplash claims are to the car insurance industry.
So you make sure only truly valid claims are met. Denying access to people with a genuine need out of a fear you might pay out an unfounded claim is seriously screwed up. RYH64E said:
I don't think the NHS should be liable for compensation under any circumstances. They provide a free service (paid for by those of us who actually pay tax), and mistakes sometimes happen. Mistakes made in hospitals tend to have serious consequences, but st happens. They're trying to help, ofTen under difficult circumstances, and sometimes make mistakes. The alternative is to not even try to help for fear of prosecution.
I'd make it a condition of treatment by the NHS that you waive rights to compensation if things go wrong, if that's not acceptable then pay and go private or take out your own insurance.
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you took your car in for some brake work to be done.garage cock up the work....loved one dies because of said cock up ?t happens. They're trying to help, ofTen under difficult circumstances, and sometimes make mistakes. The alternative is to not even try to help for fear of prosecution. I'd make it a condition of treatment by the NHS that you waive rights to compensation if things go wrong, if that's not acceptable then pay and go private or take out your own insurance.
Kermit power said:
So you make sure only truly valid claims are met. Denying access to people with a genuine need out of a fear you might pay out an unfounded claim is seriously screwed up.
So the NHS should spend their budget on legal costs determining which claim is valid and which is frivolous?Imo people choosing to be treated by the NHS should do so on the understanding that there is no compensation paid in the event of things going wrong, as I said earlier, s
t happens. If people want the reassurance of payments to cover the costs of dealing with the effects of medical mistakes then they should be offered private insurance, at their own cost, or pay for private treatment outside of the NHS.
Those that can't afford private insurance have most probably never paid much towards the costs of running the NHS in the first place, so are getting a free or hugely subsidised medical treatment which shouldn't come with the option of compensation.
I don't think blaming technology is the way to go - the problem in my case was visible on a simple ultrasound, a technology that has been widely used in pregnancy for 40+ years now. Unless you are saying we should have pressed pause in the 60s? That is a strange perspective IMHO.
When my son died we were days away from 34 weeks, which is actually considered full term for some twin pregnancies. I started requesting action be taken at about 30/31 weeks. Removing the dead twin would not have helped; the damage was done.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-to-twin_transf...
To my knowledge they did none of tests or checks, let alone any treatment. I saw the doctor immediately after the emergency c-section and she said no-one could have predicted this. I wanted to let rip but kept it to myself.
On the private front I would gladly take my son private. No-one wants him however. Private is not an option to everyone.
When my son died we were days away from 34 weeks, which is actually considered full term for some twin pregnancies. I started requesting action be taken at about 30/31 weeks. Removing the dead twin would not have helped; the damage was done.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-to-twin_transf...
To my knowledge they did none of tests or checks, let alone any treatment. I saw the doctor immediately after the emergency c-section and she said no-one could have predicted this. I wanted to let rip but kept it to myself.
On the private front I would gladly take my son private. No-one wants him however. Private is not an option to everyone.
Edited by SBDJ on Saturday 18th May 14:00
bananaman1 said:
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you took your car in for some brake work to be done.garage cock up the work....loved one dies because of said cock up ?
If the state ever introduces a nationwide chain of taxpayer funded, free at the point of use, garages then I'll consider my position.SBDJ said:
I don't think blaming technology is the way to go - the problem in my case was visible on a simple ultrasound, a technology that has been widely used in pregnancy for 40+ years now. Unless you are saying we should have pressed pause in the 60s? That is a strange perspective IMHO.
When my son died we were days away from 34 weeks, which is actually considered full term for some twin pregnancies. I started requesting action be taken at about 30/31 weeks. Removing the dead twin would not have helped; the damage was done.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-to-twin_transf...
To my knowledge they did none of tests or checks, let alone any treatment. I saw the doctor immediately after the emergency c-section and she said no-one could have predicted this. I wanted to let rip but kept it to myself.
On the private front I would gladly take my son private. No-one wants him however. Private is not an option to everyone.
I was not blaming technology far from it, what I was trying to point out is that it used to be pot luck and people accepted this. Now there is an expectation from some that every illness is cureable and if their loved ones are not cured it requires compensation.When my son died we were days away from 34 weeks, which is actually considered full term for some twin pregnancies. I started requesting action be taken at about 30/31 weeks. Removing the dead twin would not have helped; the damage was done.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-to-twin_transf...
To my knowledge they did none of tests or checks, let alone any treatment. I saw the doctor immediately after the emergency c-section and she said no-one could have predicted this. I wanted to let rip but kept it to myself.
On the private front I would gladly take my son private. No-one wants him however. Private is not an option to everyone.
Edited by SBDJ on Saturday 18th May 14:00
Where there is negligance which leads to needing care then enough money should be paid for that care, not to improve the lot of relations etc.
I hope you have been able to have children now and that time will ease your loss.
BlackVanDyke said:
Negligence is, rather by definition, emphatically not when someone has done their best to help.
Negligence is an overused term though. You are dealing with an entity that has finite resources.Edited by BlackVanDyke on Saturday 18th May 12:19
Its ok though isnt it. Most of hose taking from it have never had to contribute to it.
King Herald said:
RYH64E said:
I fundamentally disagree with the principle of suing somebody who is doing their best to help, it's biting the hand that feeds.
Doing their best to help, or doing the minimum they can get away with to keep their job?I'd love to share your image of heard working nurses, doctors, surgeons etc, all working long hard shifts, stressed, doing their absolute utmost to keep that smile shining while they do a difficult and skilled job, but I have been in hospitals, my wife has worked in hospitals, where a certain disgusting percentage of the staff don't really give a toss!!!!!!!!
Mistakes can be accepted, we all make them, but f
k-ups caused by bad attitude, laziness and ignorance are NOT acceptable.k ups not being acceptable, I work in the NHS and yes there are some lazy bds but I'd say the majority of the people working there are there for best reasons..... RYH64E said:
If anyone doesn't think that there is a problem with medical negligence claims just google 'medical negligence solicitor', there are thousands of them out there sucking money out of the NHS. Medical negligence claims are to the NHS what whiplash claims are to the car insurance industry.
That's absolutely incorrect. There is a high threshold for clinical negligence claims to succeed and the NHS (who tend to defend in-house) do not roll over easily on them at all. RYH64E said:
King Herald said:
BlackVanDyke said:
..... these aren't accidents we're talking about but medical negligence.
That is exactly my point earlier, when someone suggested people sign a waiver to avail of the NHS facilities, the NHS they have probably paid into all their working life. If you remove responsibility and accountability the NHS would end up like some third world country, where newly graduated doctors and surgeons would gply their trade for a year or two to practise on poor people, with no fear of the consequences.
Just another thing to remember is that she bought the house in 2005. I seem to remember both property prices and the property market in general being substantially more buoyant then.
So there is more deficit to cover from her point of view. I know that you could say she shouldn't have relied on the property market etc.
I don't really take either side. I just noticed that no one had mentioned that.
So there is more deficit to cover from her point of view. I know that you could say she shouldn't have relied on the property market etc.
I don't really take either side. I just noticed that no one had mentioned that.
pork911 said:
they aren't so what are you saying?
If due to negligance, and People still haven't grasped the differance between a procedure going wrong due to things like infection or such and negligance. In this case it was deemed serious so the care of the child was assesed and an amount of money dished out. If the woman needed to have a home with a seperate room for the child and then paid out for carers to come in every day , then the cost should be met on a monthly basis, not just hand over £750k as an interim.That way it is based on need.
Now take the example of a person who has an operation and then a day or so later they find a surgical instrument has been left inside. They go back in have it removed and they recover two or three days later than normal. It is negligance for sure but does that person deserve money? I would say not, but then again I haven't claimed for accidents etc I could have.
It is a very emotive subject that wil go on and on, with people entrenched on opposing sides.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff