Criminal Law regards Gross Negligence
Discussion
Dixy said:
our right to compensation if they prove merely human
I do see the sense in what you're saying, but I think you are oversimplifying.You don't get a right to compensation where clinicians behave in a way that is 'merely human' and the outcome isn't favourable - they have to be negligent, to the extent that what they do is outside the range of reasonable responses of a competent clinician (I am paraphrasing, not quoting).
So while everyone has an entitlement to care from the NHS, the compensation here is not sought because the care wasn't as good as it could be, but because it was so far below the standards of care that could and should have been provided, it was equivalent to no care at all - or possibly, even worse than that.
Dixy said:
I think that the trusts behaviour has been totally unacceptable, it is a clumsy attempt at dealing with a disaster. Open, honest learning from mistakes and dealing with lawyers are mutually exclusive in the real world.
I wonder how few routine procedures carried out now were not described as unorthodox the first few times they saved someone's life.
The problem is that fear of litigation leads people initially down the route of denial at all costs because the fear of financial losses overrides other considerations. I suspect that the OP may have been more satisfied had the trust been open and honest in the first instance and the individual involved subject to an investigation and sanction if required. Trying to cover it up has probably made it much worse.I wonder how few routine procedures carried out now were not described as unorthodox the first few times they saved someone's life.
The reality is that from time to time people do the wrong thing, sometimes because they make a mistake, but other times because they knowingly deviate from accepted practise. Deviation from accepted practise can be for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. In situations where people do the wrong thing it is only those in the latter group who should fear sanction, i.e. those who knowingly deviate from accepted practise for the wrong reasons. Your last sentence seems to encapsulate the those who deviate for the right reasons. The fact that the registrar in question failed to offer an explanation for what they had done at the inquest would suggest that they do not fall into this group.
I would say that there is a wider issue here. If serious deaths were investigated in an open and truthful way, so that lessons can be learnt thus preventing further deaths then litigation would not be needed. This is about patient safety and duty of candour. In our case there has been an horrendous incident that has killed our son. This is compounded by the fact that senior medical professionals and Trust management failed to investigate a serious death on multiple occasions!.. people must and will be accountable for their actions and I'm not referring to the registrar here.. how many families have not got the answers they deserve?.. this must be investigated.
The coroners report is in the public domain, I invite you to read it and make your own view.. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/thor-dal...
The coroners report is in the public domain, I invite you to read it and make your own view.. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/thor-dal...
Edited by nekrum on Tuesday 14th April 13:37
Dixy said:
Both of those children would have been totally cared for by the welfare state.
Oh no it wouldn't. The welfare state does not come close to covering the costs associated with a severe disability. Anyone with children with moderate to severe disabilities will tell you it is a huge financial and emotional cost. They will also tell you it is worth it, but that does not change the fact that the state does not provide what you think it does.Dixy said:
we should surrender our rite to compensation if they prove merely human.
This is not about being "merely human" both in the case you provide and the OPs case. In legal terms negligence means "A person has acted negligently if they have departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances".SteveSteveson said:
A person has acted negligently if they have departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances".
To put it another way,they have made a mistake. A police driving instructor once said to me, if I have a perfect drive on the way home it will be the first perfect drive I ever have.The rest of us make mistakes all the time, but we can go back and correct them, but clinicians cant.
The NHS do not help themselves when it comes to compensation either
They messed up my dads operations and aftercare 3 times, to the point he had to have a limb removed. They were bang to rights and even had 2 other doctors listing the mistakes that had been made. My parents were always going to win the case, yet the NHS lawyers tried to tie them up legally until they ran out of money.
Happily enough for them an insurance policy they had (I think it was home) had significant legal cover on it and the company on seeing the case were more than happy to keep paying.
In the end the case was won but it took 3 years. So the NHS had my dads compensation to pay out and 3 years of lawyers fees from both sides.
They messed up my dads operations and aftercare 3 times, to the point he had to have a limb removed. They were bang to rights and even had 2 other doctors listing the mistakes that had been made. My parents were always going to win the case, yet the NHS lawyers tried to tie them up legally until they ran out of money.
Happily enough for them an insurance policy they had (I think it was home) had significant legal cover on it and the company on seeing the case were more than happy to keep paying.
In the end the case was won but it took 3 years. So the NHS had my dads compensation to pay out and 3 years of lawyers fees from both sides.
think OP has it absolutely right - failure of the Trust to act appropriately and proportionately following the incident.
i had wondered about "unorthodox" as the use of forcep assisted C-section delivery is not at all uncommon. it would appear that the perseverance with forceps is the clinical issue. I suspect, but don't know, that this may be defensible - error of clinical judgement whilst operating unsupervised during a procedure that the clinician had previously proven competent at. i am entirely sure that the doctor did not walk into that theatre intending to preside over the death of a compromised neonate.
the link to the coroner's narrative was illuminating, thanks for posting up. i feel that he quite rightly casts more doubt on the actions of the Trust and it's officers than on the individual clinician.
what i cannot envisage is how the management of the aftermath of the incident is defensible and i note with interest that the coroner has issued directives to the Trust - i would be interested in their responses as they must have known what they were trying to do. i would certainly have known what i was trying to achieve if i'd acted in that way following an SUI
regards
paul
i had wondered about "unorthodox" as the use of forcep assisted C-section delivery is not at all uncommon. it would appear that the perseverance with forceps is the clinical issue. I suspect, but don't know, that this may be defensible - error of clinical judgement whilst operating unsupervised during a procedure that the clinician had previously proven competent at. i am entirely sure that the doctor did not walk into that theatre intending to preside over the death of a compromised neonate.
the link to the coroner's narrative was illuminating, thanks for posting up. i feel that he quite rightly casts more doubt on the actions of the Trust and it's officers than on the individual clinician.
what i cannot envisage is how the management of the aftermath of the incident is defensible and i note with interest that the coroner has issued directives to the Trust - i would be interested in their responses as they must have known what they were trying to do. i would certainly have known what i was trying to achieve if i'd acted in that way following an SUI
regards
paul
Edited by paulmakin on Tuesday 14th April 20:40
nekrum said:
This is compounded by the fact that senior medical professionals and Trust management failed to investigate a serious death on multiple occasions!.. people must and will be accountable for their actions and I'm not referring to the registrar here.. how many families have not got the answers they deserve?.. this must be investigated.
whilst not wishing to trivialise the pain of the terrible events that happened to you and othersI really do agree with this point and for those unaffected by the personal tragedy this is what we should really be trying to stop.Mistakes (and negligence) happen BUT the fact that many trusts are routinely covering up these mistakes and actively try and keep the truth from coming out is disgusting.
There is a reason that the NHS legal bill is so large - it's because management is too busy protecting its own arse to give a s
t about the truth.desolate said:
nekrum said:
This is compounded by the fact that senior medical professionals and Trust management failed to investigate a serious death on multiple occasions!.. people must and will be accountable for their actions and I'm not referring to the registrar here.. how many families have not got the answers they deserve?.. this must be investigated.
whilst not wishing to trivialise the pain of the terrible events that happened to you and othersI really do agree with this point and for those unaffected by the personal tragedy this is what we should really be trying to stop.Mistakes (and negligence) happen BUT the fact that many trusts are routinely covering up these mistakes and actively try and keep the truth from coming out is disgusting.
There is a reason that the NHS legal bill is so large - it's because management is too busy protecting its own arse to give a s
t about the truth.Chief Justice King in F v R 1984
"In many cases an approved professional practice as to disclosure will be decisive. But professions may adopt unreasonable practices. Practices may develop in professions, particularly as to disclosure, not because they serve the interests of the clients, but because they protect the interests or convenience of members of the profession. The court has an obligation to scrutinize professional practices to ensure that they accord with the standard of reasonableness imposed by the law. A practice as to disclosure approved and adopted by a profession or section of it may be in many cases the determining consideration as to what is reasonable. On the facts of a particular case the answer to the question whether the defendant’s conduct conformed to approved professional practice may decide the issue of negligence, and the test has been posed in such terms in a number of cases. The ultimate question, however, is not whether the defendant’s conduct accords with the practices of his profession or some part of it, but whether it conforms to the standard of reasonable care demanded by the law. That is a question for the court and the duty of deciding it cannot be delegated to any profession or group in the community."
That judgement was over 30 years ago. One might be forgiven for thinking that those responsible for running NHS Trusts would know about it by now. Unfortunately obfuscation still seems to be SOP.
"In many cases an approved professional practice as to disclosure will be decisive. But professions may adopt unreasonable practices. Practices may develop in professions, particularly as to disclosure, not because they serve the interests of the clients, but because they protect the interests or convenience of members of the profession. The court has an obligation to scrutinize professional practices to ensure that they accord with the standard of reasonableness imposed by the law. A practice as to disclosure approved and adopted by a profession or section of it may be in many cases the determining consideration as to what is reasonable. On the facts of a particular case the answer to the question whether the defendant’s conduct conformed to approved professional practice may decide the issue of negligence, and the test has been posed in such terms in a number of cases. The ultimate question, however, is not whether the defendant’s conduct accords with the practices of his profession or some part of it, but whether it conforms to the standard of reasonable care demanded by the law. That is a question for the court and the duty of deciding it cannot be delegated to any profession or group in the community."
That judgement was over 30 years ago. One might be forgiven for thinking that those responsible for running NHS Trusts would know about it by now. Unfortunately obfuscation still seems to be SOP.
Timely post from the OP - I have just had a response from a trust following a complaint i have made.
I have made it perfectly clear from the outset that we don't want compensation - just some transparency and explanations.
Plus one particular Doctor's head on a spike.
Instead we have received lots of words.
I wish the OP all the best - what happened to his family is truly tragic.
I have some very experienced people helping me so OP if you ever need someone to discuss matters with please drop me a PM.
And remember Arthur Seaton - "Don't let the bds grind you down"
I have made it perfectly clear from the outset that we don't want compensation - just some transparency and explanations.
Plus one particular Doctor's head on a spike.
Instead we have received lots of words.
I wish the OP all the best - what happened to his family is truly tragic.
I have some very experienced people helping me so OP if you ever need someone to discuss matters with please drop me a PM.
And remember Arthur Seaton - "Don't let the b
ds grind you down"NHS trust where do i start.
OP firstly sorry for your loss,
i have been in a legal case with a trust now for an operation that has caused life changing injuries and even thou we have had 3 damming reports against it after 5 years its only just going to court in Oct. luckily i have insurances that will mean if i lose i won't be out of pocket and any costs incurred will be covered by insurance or RBL.
They will try all tricks but you just have to be stronger. my legal fees are over 160k so theres must be more from what i have seen.
OP firstly sorry for your loss,
i have been in a legal case with a trust now for an operation that has caused life changing injuries and even thou we have had 3 damming reports against it after 5 years its only just going to court in Oct. luckily i have insurances that will mean if i lose i won't be out of pocket and any costs incurred will be covered by insurance or RBL.
They will try all tricks but you just have to be stronger. my legal fees are over 160k so theres must be more from what i have seen.
You have my deepest sympathy for your loss of a child, but what is it now you want? It seems to me that the death of your child was not explained fully and the reason why is people in the NHS fear telling the truth.
My MIL had some mental issues, had smoked for years and complained of shortness of breath, for months. She was dismissed as imagining it. She died 6 months later from cancer. In my opinion the Doctors were negligent, but in truth, could they have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not, but what hurt the family more was that everyone clammed up as soon as we asked questions.
All my FIL wanted was someone to say sorry, but they could not as they fear an admission will lead to a costly court case. No compensation would have made any difference but a simple "sorry we let her down" was all that was needed.
The FIl then wanted someone struck off hung drawn and quartered, after the stony silence, but how would that help, I suspect the Doctor was sorry he had done what he did, as he was a decent man, but the lack of interaction was wrong.
When the judge gives his verdict that may well determine your next step, but ask yourself what you hope to achieve. If you want someone to go to jail is it justice for your son or revenge? You say your son was killed, but then that would be manslaughter or murder, proving intent or motive is hard.
As others have said Doctors and medical staff are human, they make mistakes, operate at stressful times, if I make a mistake we lose money, they do it death a disability happens.
From all the cases I have heard of once solicitors are involved the pressure from them can distort what you really want.
Whatever happens I hope you and your wife can move on and not let this tragedy harm the two of you further.
My MIL had some mental issues, had smoked for years and complained of shortness of breath, for months. She was dismissed as imagining it. She died 6 months later from cancer. In my opinion the Doctors were negligent, but in truth, could they have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not, but what hurt the family more was that everyone clammed up as soon as we asked questions.
All my FIL wanted was someone to say sorry, but they could not as they fear an admission will lead to a costly court case. No compensation would have made any difference but a simple "sorry we let her down" was all that was needed.
The FIl then wanted someone struck off hung drawn and quartered, after the stony silence, but how would that help, I suspect the Doctor was sorry he had done what he did, as he was a decent man, but the lack of interaction was wrong.
When the judge gives his verdict that may well determine your next step, but ask yourself what you hope to achieve. If you want someone to go to jail is it justice for your son or revenge? You say your son was killed, but then that would be manslaughter or murder, proving intent or motive is hard.
As others have said Doctors and medical staff are human, they make mistakes, operate at stressful times, if I make a mistake we lose money, they do it death a disability happens.
From all the cases I have heard of once solicitors are involved the pressure from them can distort what you really want.
Whatever happens I hope you and your wife can move on and not let this tragedy harm the two of you further.
spaximus said:
You have my deepest sympathy for your loss of a child, but what is it now you want? It seems to me that the death of your child was not explained fully and the reason why is people in the NHS fear telling the truth.
My MIL had some mental issues, had smoked for years and complained of shortness of breath, for months. She was dismissed as imagining it. She died 6 months later from cancer. In my opinion the Doctors were negligent, but in truth, could they have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not, but what hurt the family more was that everyone clammed up as soon as we asked questions.
All my FIL wanted was someone to say sorry, but they could not as they fear an admission will lead to a costly court case. No compensation would have made any difference but a simple "sorry we let her down" was all that was needed.
The FIl then wanted someone struck off hung drawn and quartered, after the stony silence, but how would that help, I suspect the Doctor was sorry he had done what he did, as he was a decent man, but the lack of interaction was wrong.
When the judge gives his verdict that may well determine your next step, but ask yourself what you hope to achieve. If you want someone to go to jail is it justice for your son or revenge? You say your son was killed, but then that would be manslaughter or murder, proving intent or motive is hard.
As others have said Doctors and medical staff are human, they make mistakes, operate at stressful times, if I make a mistake we lose money, they do it death a disability happens.
From all the cases I have heard of once solicitors are involved the pressure from them can distort what you really want.
Whatever happens I hope you and your wife can move on and not let this tragedy harm the two of you further.
I couldn't agree more. All we have ever wanted was the truth, acceptance that failures were made and lessons had been learnt. We have some of this now but what I am really angry about is the additional insult to injury the Trust had put us through since September 2013. All needlessly and as you rightly say, is due to them building a wall of silence and defense. Once we got through this wall there is shocking evidence of systematic failures and bad governance. The fact is they failed to investigate a serious neonatal death. This for me is very concerning and potentially continuing to put other lives at risk and potentially denying other families the chance to truly move on by being denied the truth. This is why we are taking action. I would not be able to live with myself if in a years time I hear of another neonatal death at that hospital, potentially involving the same Dr's and I failed to act. If I don't act it makes me as bad as them. Essentially a message must sent that this sort of behavior is not acceptable and people should and will be held accountable if they fail to perform their duty. It is not for me to decide if they have committed an offence, it is not for me to decided if they are in breach of their professional duty. That's for the Police and GMC to investigate. All I can do if report my concerns based on the evidence from the inquest. I would say that if it all comes to nothing but it makes one Dr or one NHS manager think twice about their candour, then for me that's a win.My MIL had some mental issues, had smoked for years and complained of shortness of breath, for months. She was dismissed as imagining it. She died 6 months later from cancer. In my opinion the Doctors were negligent, but in truth, could they have made a difference to the outcome? Probably not, but what hurt the family more was that everyone clammed up as soon as we asked questions.
All my FIL wanted was someone to say sorry, but they could not as they fear an admission will lead to a costly court case. No compensation would have made any difference but a simple "sorry we let her down" was all that was needed.
The FIl then wanted someone struck off hung drawn and quartered, after the stony silence, but how would that help, I suspect the Doctor was sorry he had done what he did, as he was a decent man, but the lack of interaction was wrong.
When the judge gives his verdict that may well determine your next step, but ask yourself what you hope to achieve. If you want someone to go to jail is it justice for your son or revenge? You say your son was killed, but then that would be manslaughter or murder, proving intent or motive is hard.
As others have said Doctors and medical staff are human, they make mistakes, operate at stressful times, if I make a mistake we lose money, they do it death a disability happens.
From all the cases I have heard of once solicitors are involved the pressure from them can distort what you really want.
Whatever happens I hope you and your wife can move on and not let this tragedy harm the two of you further.
desolate said:
I have some very experienced people helping me so OP if you ever need someone to discuss matters with please drop me a PM.
Thanks for this desolate, I'll drop you a line..Edited by nekrum on Wednesday 13th May 08:25
OP you have my deepest sympathies - I can't even start to get my head around how terrible that day must have been.
For people who haven't read the coroners report it's definitely worth reading prior to posting, it's very, very sad. It's obvious that some very serious mistakes were made, but made more annoying/sadder by the fact that by and large they're easily preventable. I totally understand why the OP feels it necessary to ensure that the hospital in future amends their practises.
One thing I would add though is that I'm quite sure the doctor involved is totally torn up about this. I have a few friends who are surgeons and if you think that loosing a patient 'bounces off' them then you're wrong - and that's compounded with children/babies. Again, if the Trust had been open and honest with you they would have not only helped you but their own staff and future patients.
For people who haven't read the coroners report it's definitely worth reading prior to posting, it's very, very sad. It's obvious that some very serious mistakes were made, but made more annoying/sadder by the fact that by and large they're easily preventable. I totally understand why the OP feels it necessary to ensure that the hospital in future amends their practises.
One thing I would add though is that I'm quite sure the doctor involved is totally torn up about this. I have a few friends who are surgeons and if you think that loosing a patient 'bounces off' them then you're wrong - and that's compounded with children/babies. Again, if the Trust had been open and honest with you they would have not only helped you but their own staff and future patients.
Petrus1983 said:
OP you have my deepest sympathies - I can't even start to get my head around how terrible that day must have been.
For people who haven't read the coroners report it's definitely worth reading prior to posting, it's very, very sad. It's obvious that some very serious mistakes were made, but made more annoying/sadder by the fact that by and large they're easily preventable. I totally understand why the OP feels it necessary to ensure that the hospital in future amends their practises.
One thing I would add though is that I'm quite sure the doctor involved is totally torn up about this. I have a few friends who are surgeons and if you think that loosing a patient 'bounces off' them then you're wrong - and that's compounded with children/babies. Again, if the Trust had been open and honest with you they would have not only helped you but their own staff and future patients.
Petrus1983, thanks for that. Again, I agree wholehearted that the registrar had no intention of causing harm when she entered the room and she was clearly shaken and remorseful at the inquest. If I'm honest I have far less animosity towards her than the I do the Consultant and the Trust. I also firmly believe that the registrar was put in a situation she maybe shouldn't have been in BUT she is a Dr of over 10 years experience who failed to follow accepted practice without justification and failed to offer any at the inquest. She then subsequently failed to make any notes regards the delivery and failed to provide a statement for over 10 months - this is in itself is a gross breach of her professional duty. A close family member is a midwife and any neonatal death clearly have a profound effect on them and they have nothing but my utmost respect and admiration for what they do.For people who haven't read the coroners report it's definitely worth reading prior to posting, it's very, very sad. It's obvious that some very serious mistakes were made, but made more annoying/sadder by the fact that by and large they're easily preventable. I totally understand why the OP feels it necessary to ensure that the hospital in future amends their practises.
One thing I would add though is that I'm quite sure the doctor involved is totally torn up about this. I have a few friends who are surgeons and if you think that loosing a patient 'bounces off' them then you're wrong - and that's compounded with children/babies. Again, if the Trust had been open and honest with you they would have not only helped you but their own staff and future patients.
Nothing will change what happened, nothing will make us feel better about it and it's something we will carry for the rest of our lives. We accept that accidents can and will happen. What is unacceptable is their failure to perform their duty, their duty of candour, their duty to learn to prevent future deaths. It's about people doing what's right, what's proper and what is morally acceptable. It's about showing bereaved parents dignity and respect.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff