This
if there was any inclination that it wasn’t the correct cause of death, surely your conscience would prevent you from letting parents walk out the door thinking one thing when you were thinking another? 🥹
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
if there was any inclination that it wasn’t the correct cause of death, surely your conscience would prevent you from letting parents walk out the door thinking one thing when you were thinking another? 🥹
I agree....whether foul play suspected or not...they deserve to know how their baby died or possibly on this case didn't......that is of NEC
Me neither, makes me so sad for those parents who clearly trusted and believed all they were told...even from LL.." they trusted her"
If somebody was murdering babies, if you can allow that for a minute as a hypothetical- would you expect causes of death to be hard to explain and hard to ascertain? I personally would. If other causes of huge blood loss are rare and she never expected physical trauma caused by somebody, she has given a reason. She can see now it is wrong. I don’t see how it changes anything at all to do with Letby’s innocence but I see Myers has been successful in making people think that it does.
Has she said she was thinking another though? I think she was unsure but concluded NEC as most likely? Maybe I’m wrong but didn’t think she’s said she thought it was anything else either.This
So let's just play devils advocate here - how come LL forgetting why she searched for parents on Facebook years after the fact is suspicious, but a Consultant passing off an infant's death as something that she wasn't actually sure about, and discouraging a PM isn't?
So glad it's not just me...i feel like I'm going round the twist....This
It comes across as tick box and move on behaviour.
It's awful, heartbreaking for those families. A cause of death is so important for families to help understand and gain some closure, they would have been desperate to know why or how this happened to their seemingly well baby and they were absolutely fobbed off. One of many examples of the shocking level of care on this ward.This
It really does and that's what I'm struggling with
I’ll answer despite you not answering me which is a shame! No it isn’t at all ‘suspicious’ actually or at all similar imo! Because she’s not accused of a crime. Her negligence didn’t result in harm it resulted in this case being more complicated and potentially for Letby to continue but we won’t ever know that. I don’t understand what the doctor is doing that is suspicious whatsoever. Does it mean she’s covering her tracks by admitting her mistake then? Her decision didn’t change any outcome for the baby so why would it be suspicious? What does the doctor gain? Letby denied herself of an opportunity to give account for her behaviour. It’s not comparable
A couple of things re last few pages of chat..
We all die of cardiac arrest. Death certificates have to qualify what led to that. A ‘failure’ such as respiratory failure, heart failure etc is not allowed, it must be qualified by something that caused it.
Having a post Mortem wouldn’t have necessarily stopped things. Firstly, from reporting to the coroner to the time of inquest is usually up to a year. Secondly, the consultant did speak to the coroners office. When someone dies it’s either expected or unexpected. If expected, certificates can be issued without hesitation to the best knowledge of the doctor - it should be to the knowledge of the overseeing consultant despite usually completed by the junior. If unexpected then it is presented to the coroners office with a timeline of events and what the likely cause of death is despite it being unknown. The doctor has to say whether they can reasonably determine to the best of their knowledge that that’s what the cause is. This is then ‘run past’ the coroner and if the story sounds reasonable with a cause of death that sounds reasonable, and if the next of kin has given no concern to the coroners office, then it will be ‘ok for doctor to issue certificate’. So it has been discussed to an extent, no further knowledge could have been gained unless a pm was done.
Lastly, it’s not a finger pointing exercise.
The pathologist may have seen no signs of NEC on pm but that would have then meant the inquest was based on going through the notes and calling relevant staff to inquest. By relevant staff, I mean those who have documented and been active at significant treatment times ie the consultant who ran the cardiac arrest. I doubt LL would have been called up as a witness at inquest but if so it would just be to go through her version of the deterioration under her care, and then they would likely have focussed on what medical causes could have led to death to get a verdict in order to close the case. I need to point out here that she was so horribly evil that most methods of torture were so subtle anyway, and at the point of likely inquest I think she had been suspended re other deaths.
My last point really is related to this and I find difficult to explain the extent of it. I am an experienced frontline worker and never - despite the sickest patients I have encountered - have I ever wondered if their health could have been sabotaged by a colleague. It’s just not something that’s ever considered. It’s never in the ‘list’ of causes of a problem. Yes we might not meet a standard of care each and every time, but 99.999999% are working their absolute hardest to provide the care, and working as a team, and these failings per se are more reflective of the numbers of staff rather than their abilities.
We all die of cardiac arrest. Death certificates have to qualify what led to that. A ‘failure’ such as respiratory failure, heart failure etc is not allowed, it must be qualified by something that caused it.
Having a post Mortem wouldn’t have necessarily stopped things. Firstly, from reporting to the coroner to the time of inquest is usually up to a year. Secondly, the consultant did speak to the coroners office. When someone dies it’s either expected or unexpected. If expected, certificates can be issued without hesitation to the best knowledge of the doctor - it should be to the knowledge of the overseeing consultant despite usually completed by the junior. If unexpected then it is presented to the coroners office with a timeline of events and what the likely cause of death is despite it being unknown. The doctor has to say whether they can reasonably determine to the best of their knowledge that that’s what the cause is. This is then ‘run past’ the coroner and if the story sounds reasonable with a cause of death that sounds reasonable, and if the next of kin has given no concern to the coroners office, then it will be ‘ok for doctor to issue certificate’. So it has been discussed to an extent, no further knowledge could have been gained unless a pm was done.
Lastly, it’s not a finger pointing exercise.
The pathologist may have seen no signs of NEC on pm but that would have then meant the inquest was based on going through the notes and calling relevant staff to inquest. By relevant staff, I mean those who have documented and been active at significant treatment times ie the consultant who ran the cardiac arrest. I doubt LL would have been called up as a witness at inquest but if so it would just be to go through her version of the deterioration under her care, and then they would likely have focussed on what medical causes could have led to death to get a verdict in order to close the case. I need to point out here that she was so horribly evil that most methods of torture were so subtle anyway, and at the point of likely inquest I think she had been suspended re other deaths.
My last point really is related to this and I find difficult to explain the extent of it. I am an experienced frontline worker and never - despite the sickest patients I have encountered - have I ever wondered if their health could have been sabotaged by a colleague. It’s just not something that’s ever considered. It’s never in the ‘list’ of causes of a problem. Yes we might not meet a standard of care each and every time, but 99.999999% are working their absolute hardest to provide the care, and working as a team, and these failings per se are more reflective of the numbers of staff rather than their abilities.
A doctor can be negligent and make a grave error of judgment and there can also be a serial killer nurse at the same time.
It’s not one or the other!
It’s not one or the other!
Sorry may have been asked. But when does LL take the stand and get questioned?
Or is she doing this as well as the witnesses.
Or is she doing this as well as the witnesses.
Very, very interesting post! Thank you.
The fact there was no PM means there is enough reasonable doubt she even caused the death. That's baby A-E so far as a juror it would have to be NG. Maybe I'm a bit bias but that's my thoughts for the moment.
It must be so awful for the parents that have to go home and look at their children.. Survived or siblings.
You would feel heartbroken all over again just by going home and looking at them knowing the many horrific things happened to them. They should be out Christmas shopping and getting excited in the run up to Christmas. How do you even begin to go home and pretend everything is OK for six months?
The staff also have to live with their mistakes or failings and that must be a heavy burden to carry.
You would feel heartbroken all over again just by going home and looking at them knowing the many horrific things happened to them. They should be out Christmas shopping and getting excited in the run up to Christmas. How do you even begin to go home and pretend everything is OK for six months?
The staff also have to live with their mistakes or failings and that must be a heavy burden to carry.
Sorry I missed the first part of your last message, trying to multitask and as usual, failing at life!I’ll answer despite you not answering me which is a shame! No it isn’t at all ‘suspicious’ actually or at all similar imo! Because she’s not accused of a crime. Her negligence didn’t result in harm it resulted in this case being more complicated and potentially for Letby to continue but we won’t ever know that. I don’t understand what the doctor is doing that is suspicious whatsoever. Does it mean she’s covering her tracks by admitting her mistake then? Her decision didn’t change any outcome for the baby so why would it be suspicious? What does the doctor gain? Letby denied herself of an opportunity to give account for her behaviour. It’s not comparable
I guess in this scenario, the method/scenario in which LL is accused of harming this baby wasn't particularly subtle - the baby apparently lost what, 25% of its blood volume? If this was something the Dr's had very rarely seen and were so confused by it, why did they put down a cause of death that has a very typical lead up and deterioration point?
If she stood on that stand today and said she stood by her NEC diagnosis, it would have been ripped apart, because apparently there was no lead up and it didn't show on x-ray. So she had no other choice today but to admit it was wrong and apologise for it. That is what is shifty. The fact that she knew back then, but still didn't pursue to find out the actual cause of death.
What was also interesting is that there was some talk of how long it took her to get to the neonatal unit when she was being called, and how she was in the resident block.
Yes I’m unsure how this incident, as awful as it is, can in any way help Letby’s innocence. It could prove it’s the worst unit ever but it still wouldn’t mean she has NOT murdered the babies. The incident today in particular does literally nothing to show that the cause of death was NOT Letby’s sabotage
If we need so much concrete proof to believe Letby did kill the babies, why does a vague picture of incompetence prove she didn’t To go back to the 'luck of the draw' then, wouldn't it be incredibly lucky for LL to have a Consultant write a death off as something other than suspicious? She must have been wringing her hands at her good luck with that one.
Yes it was. It’s either that or she’s very unlucky to have had yet another baby die in an extremely sudden and rare way after seemingly doing very well before. So which one is it, lucky or unlucky
If she takes to the stand on a different baby and says actually looking at the X-ray I can see that I HAVE missed an obstruction and I think that means the cause of death was NEC- would you question it as suspicious then? If a doctor later was able to say yes actually it was this natural cause and it benefited Letby’s case - would it be suspicious? Or is it suspicious because it works against her?
I don’t know what answer you were expecting from me but yes, if she’s guilty she was incredibly lucky to be working on a low standard ward.
It aided her killings to go on as long as they did.
- Status