ThisI honestly can't get my head around a consultant identifying a cause of death that they're not convinced by and then telling the parents that there's 'little point' in a PM and it wouldn't tell them much. Absolutely awful.
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 NECI honestly can't get my head around a consultant identifying a cause of death that they're not convinced by and then telling the parents that there's 'little point' in a PM and it wouldn't tell them much. Absolutely awful.
Me neither, makes me so sad for those parents who clearly trusted and believed all they were told...even from LL.." they trusted her"No, of course not - but what I mean is; if she took the stand and stood by her original decision she knows it would get ripped. So, she goes up there and admits she was wrong in hindsight and ‘apologises’, and somehow it’s ok? I just don’t buy it. She knew at the time it wasn’t right, but she still let someone look those parents in the eyes and tell them their baby had died of NEC when (she now thinks) they hadn’t. That’s not credible in my eyes, I have no idea what do believe now.
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.No, of course not - but what I mean is; if she took the stand and stood by her original decision she knows it would get ripped. So, she goes up there and admits she was wrong in hindsight and ‘apologises’, and somehow it’s ok? I just don’t buy it. She knew at the time it wasn’t right, but she still let someone look those parents in the eyes and tell them their baby had died of NEC when (she now thinks) they hadn’t. That’s not credible in my eyes, I have no idea what do believe now.
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.Thisif 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? 🥹
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?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.
So glad it's not just me...i feel like I'm going round the twist....Thisif 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? 🥹
It comes across as tick box and move on behaviour.I honestly can't get my head around a consultant identifying a cause of death that they're not convinced by and then telling the parents that there's 'little point' in a PM and it wouldn't tell them much. Absolutely awful.
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.Thisif 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? 🥹
It really does and that's what I'm struggling withIt comes across as tick box and move on behaviour.
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 comparableSo 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?
Very, very interesting post! Thank you.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.
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
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 sabotageA 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!
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.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!
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 unluckyTo 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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?