Criminal Law regards Gross Negligence

[SamHH]

Dixy said:

Except Shipman ... none of the profession set out to harm.

Would you extend your reasoning (that only intentional harm should give rise to civil liability) to any other fields? Driving, for example?

Dixy said:

The bill for litigation is crippling the NHS.

What is the NHS's bill for litigation?

[Dixy]

SamHH said:

Dixy said:

Except Shipman ... none of the profession set out to harm.

Would you extend your reasoning (that only intentional harm should give rise to civil liability) to any other fields? Driving, for example?


absolutely not everyone should have some one to blame for everything. To give your example of driving, having driven at a stupid speed in to a bend and lost control, the Stig should be teleported in to your car, free at the point of need, and if he does not do everything perfectly he should be punished, but even if he does everything that could be done, he should be interrogated and castigated cos he should be a god.

Dixy said:

The bill for litigation is crippling the NHS.

What is the NHS's bill for litigation?

difficult to answer £20 bn ish, this is an indication http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9065534/N...

[SamHH]

Dixy said:

absolutely not everyone should have some one to blame for everything. To give your example of driving, having driven at a stupid speed in to a bend and lost control, the Stig should be teleported in to your car, free at the point of need, and if he does not do everything perfectly he should be punished, but even if he does everything that could be done, he should be interrogated and castigated cos he should be a god.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with your example. You appear to be suggesting that the only option besides 'liability for intentional harm only' is 'liability for all harm'. Yet you must know that is wrong?

Adapting your scenario, if the driver, having driven at a stupid speed, injures another person or damages their property, should she be immune from liability because she did not intend that harm?

Edited by SamHH on Sunday 28th December 14:55

[Dixy]

I suggesting that the Stig was the clinitition and the original driver was the patient.

[SamHH]

Dixy said:

I suggesting that the Stig was the clinitition and the original driver was the patient.

I get that, but it doesn't answer question about whether your 'no liability for unintentional harm' ideal extends to fields other than NHS healthcare.

[singlecoil]

SamHH said:

Dixy said:

I suggesting that the Stig was the clinitition and the original driver was the patient.

I get that, but it doesn't answer question about whether your 'no liability for unintentional harm' ideal extends to fields other than NHS healthcare.

Perhaps he didn't think the question was relevant?

[Mart-1]

OP - not sure which part of the country you're from but Bindman and Partners in London are highly respected and experienced. Bindmans were recommended to me by both a barrister and a Judge friend, and I found them to be excellent (not a clinical negligence matter in our case)

Bindmans are listed on the AVMA website recommended by Piglet, and have expertise in clinical negligence cases

http://www.bindmans.com/

I wish you well with whichever course you follow

[allergictocheese]

If the OP really wants to see what his options are regards criminal liability he either needs to make a complaint to the Police who can investigate or otherwise engage a barrister capable of direct access who specializes in dealing with gross negligence manslaughter, preferably in medical cases.

Clinical negligence firms dealing with civil claims are unlikely to be very useful unless they have a criminal department.

If the Police have been or are unwilling to investigate, the OP ought to think carefully as private prosecutions are very expensive and run the risk of being taken over and discontinued by the CPS leaving the complainant severely out of pocket.

[SamHH]

singlecoil said:

Perhaps he didn't think the question was relevant?

The question is relevant because if Dixy advocates an exceptional rule for NHS healthcare, one might expect a coherent reason for where that rule fits into the broader picture of liablity for causing harm. But it is not clear if that is what they advocate.

[Dixy]

SamHH said:

I get that, but it doesn't answer question about whether your 'no liability for unintentional harm' ideal extends to fields other than NHS healthcare.

I do think the NHS should be a special case as it provides something exceptional in an exceptional way. Taking money out as a punishment only serves to constrict its ability. If management concentrated more on facilitating treatment rather than covering there arses less problems would actually occur.

[Zod]

NicD said:

Dixy said:

The bill for litigation is crippling the NHS.
But I am being ridiculous.

No, you are not.

Yes, he is. Many cases of medical negligence have severe, life-changing results. Dealing with those results over a lifetime costs a lot of money.

The vast majority of medical negligence payouts are not like a lottery win, but provide crucial financial support for a family whose cost of living has incr add dramatically and not on a temporary basis.

[Dixy]

The alternative is you turn up at hospital and they say we wont try and treat you in case we are human and may not be perfect, so if we do nothing you die but cant sue but if we try and save you and you live but with lesser problems you will milk us dry.
Assuming you are left disabled then the welfare state will provide wheelchairs, cars, accommodation....
In the OP and other posters case no level of cash could recompense, it just impedes the organisation.

[Chrisgr31]

Zod said:

Yes, he is. Many cases of medical negligence have severe, life-changing results. Dealing with those results over a lifetime costs a lot of money.

The vast majority of medical negligence payouts are not like a lottery win, but provide crucial financial support for a family whose cost of living has incr add dramatically and not on a temporary basis.

I understand the point you are making, however it would be a lot better for us as taxpayers, and probably the carers of the patient, if the compensation to cover those additional costs was agreed without the use of no-win no fee lawyers benefiting from the maximum payout and charging the earth to get it.

There must be a better way of agreeing compensation where it is deserved.

[SamHH]

Dixy said:

I do think the NHS should be a special case as it provides something exceptional in an exceptional way. Taking money out as a punishment only serves to constrict its ability. If management concentrated more on facilitating treatment rather than covering there arses less problems would actually occur.

Your solution would, however, create the anomaly that a person who gets private healthcare can expect to be treated reasonably carefully (as all patients currently can), whereas a patient who gets NHS healthcare can expect to be treated with no care whatever (or at least to have no recompense if they are so treated). Seems a bit uncomfortable, don't you think?

[singlecoil]

SamHH said:

Dixy said:

I do think the NHS should be a special case as it provides something exceptional in an exceptional way. Taking money out as a punishment only serves to constrict its ability. If management concentrated more on facilitating treatment rather than covering there arses less problems would actually occur.

Your solution would, however, create the anomaly that a person who gets private healthcare can expect to be treated reasonably carefully (as all patients currently can), whereas a patient who gets NHS healthcare can expect to be treated with no care whatever (or at least to have no recompense if they are so treated). Seems a bit uncomfortable, don't you think?

False dilemma.

There are other alternatives.

[SamHH]

singlecoil said:

False dilemma.

There are other alternatives.

You'll have to elaborate a bit. Alternatives to what?

[singlecoil]

SamHH said:

singlecoil said:

False dilemma.

There are other alternatives.

You'll have to elaborate a bit. Alternatives to what?

More of a Straw man, now I think about it.

Dixy put forward a scenario he approved of, and you said that it would lead to a scenario I am sure he would not approve of or even agree with ("a patient who gets NHS healthcare can expect to be treated with no care whatever") as if there were no other possible scenarios. In fact I think that implying that NHS staff only care treat their with care for fear that they might be sued otherwise is extremely insulting.

[Red Devil]

I think the problem is not so much errors on the part of clinicians and nursing staff (although they do get it badly wrong at times) but the attitude of the suits whose knee-jerk reaction is often to obfuscate, stonewall, and do everything in their power to cover their backsides. Too many executives have an inbuilt aversion to acknowledging failings and end up developing a siege mentality. Sometimes all that people want is an explanation, an apology, and a some confidence that mistakes will not be repeated. If you treat them with indifference and/or contempt they will be inclined to look for revenge and that can often turn to a burning desire to demand an exemplary financial punishment.

[SamHH]

singlecoil said:

More of a Straw man, now I think about it.

Dixy put forward a scenario he approved of, and you said that it would lead to a scenario I am sure he would not approve of or even agree with ("a patient who gets NHS healthcare can expect to be treated with no care whatever") as if there were no other possible scenarios. In fact I think that implying that NHS staff only care treat their with care for fear that they might be sued otherwise is extremely insulting.

Sure, people act with care for reasons other than the possiblity of being liable if they don't. I alluded to that by saying that Dixy's formula would at least mean that NHS patients could have no expectiation of recompense. But perhaps I didn't make that point explicitly enough.

That notwithstanding, I'm sure we would all agree that, whatever the law says, people will sometimes act carelessly, and that carelessness with sometimes cause injury or death to others.

Under Dixy's formula, the civil law's response to a patient who suffers such harm will depend on whether they have contracted for the healthcare, or got it free-at-the-point-of-service. Do you think that's OK? I'm not sure, but I tend towards thinking that's a bad thing.

[Dixy]

Firstly apologies to the OP for hijacking your thread, I hope you find some peace.
No, under my formula there is no place for civil law at all, the NHS is based on what should be a cornerstone of humanity and the solution to things going wrong should be the same.
I have yet to meet some one that has not screwed up, the consequences in health are most apparent. Loosing a young life will not be resolved by a fat cheque. Mistakes must be acknowledged and lessons learnt, but the constant threat of litigation forces the NHS to be uncommunicative, defensive and far too much time is spent literally ticking boxes that could be far better used for patient care.