Sorry both not much medical knowledge, more on the legal side.
We've got some good medical posters on here though, that could answer much better then me!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
We've got some good medical posters on here though, that could answer much better then me!
Makes absolutely zero difference what gender you are? Just don’t claim that all judges are men when they’re not? Problem solved!!!
Good point. I hadn’t actually noticed that. It would have been memorably concerning to observe these unusual symptoms in 2 babies in such a short time span.
I think this child has a PM which didn’t evidence any damage caused by the lineYea it’s quite concerning. The facts are though that despite his reflection of it being in the right place he still made multiple attempts - what effect (if any) would this have had on the baby. Also deeply concerning that he wouldn’t note the rash in baby’s records at the time and even moreso as he’s now regarding it of significance. I appreciate he was under a lot of emotional distress but as a doctor he must be able to separate his emotions from his clinical observations to ensure good quality care which includes accurate record keeping.
It’s no good saying something now if there is no evidence of it to back up what you’re saying - this creates a measure of doubt imo. He’s let that baby and their family down by not making accurate records which he feels reflect the situation - how can he be so sure 7 years later if he didn’t even write about it to jog his memory!?! I hope if anything positive can come out of this trial it will be that all medical and nursing staff understand the importance of making good clinical records
ANYWAY…. 
Did I read somewhere that the air can occur after a death? Is that why they can’t prove that as the cause of death? And can only say it is a likely possibility?
edited to add that I’ve double posted with the above poster which I guess is the same thing…so definitely knew I’d seen that somewhere but not sure how true that is.
Did I read somewhere that the air can occur after a death? Is that why they can’t prove that as the cause of death? And can only say it is a likely possibility?
edited to add that I’ve double posted with the above poster which I guess is the same thing…so definitely knew I’d seen that somewhere but not sure how true that is.
As much as I think their evidence is crap so far, I really just can't shake the feeling she's guilty as sin and of so much more than this. For me it all just comes down to the sheer amount of cases, I can't bring myself to believe it's physically possible to be chance, regardless of how many hours she worked. Even if she worked 168 hours a week and tended to every single child, there shouldn't have been that many deaths.
*Also the garden thing tbf. You don't dig someone's personal garden up for no reason, it's not like if she did murder the babies, she was burying them there. So what the duck else do they think she's done?
*Also the garden thing tbf. You don't dig someone's personal garden up for no reason, it's not like if she did murder the babies, she was burying them there. So what the duck else do they think she's done?
MailOnline seem to be a bit clearer on it, it’s sounding like it was discussed and noticed after child B? Hard to say without seeing statement and records in full. Looks like it was noted on child B according to agreed facts timeline but doesn’t give staff names.
The post mortem said the cause of death was unascertained. There was talk of air deliberately injected and also an independent pathologist suggesting the cause was unascertained but likely that exogenous air administration through long line or UVC. Could the 3 attempts of inserting UVC have caused that air to go in?
“An independent pathologist described the cause of death was 'unascertained', in that there was nothing in the autopsy that pointed to why Child A had died, but the cause was most likely 'exogenous air administration through the longline or UVC'.
Said explanations are also backed up, the prosecution say, by an independent radiologist.”
I disagree (You know if you don’t like someone’s post on here, you don’t have to reply?
)
Was about to say this. Maybe it was the adrenaline and drama created by having to rush to 'save' a baby. Which led to them dying but wasn't necessarily the aim per say.
Mr Myers said it in his opening statement for the defence but he kept it so brief he hasn’t quoted any of his own witnesses, if he has any. It was his intention to keep his opening brief so I assume he has witnesses of his own for stuff like this that will come later, or maybe on cross examination he expects the medical experts to agree with him.ANYWAY….
Did I read somewhere that the air can occur after a death? Is that why they can’t prove that as the cause of death? And can only say it is a likely possibility?
edited to add that I’ve double posted with the above poster which I guess is the same thing…so definitely knew I’d seen that somewhere but not sure how true that is.
It's just so sad, those poor babies
H
I’m struggling to see the jump from murder to torture that a lot of people are making.
Edited just to add that this method shows intent to cause death hence attempted murder charges
But you see that using a method like causing air embolus wouldn’t give much chance to a baby.
I’m struggling to see the jump from murder to torture that a lot of people are making.
Edited just to add that this method shows intent to cause death hence attempted murder charges
Air embolism is a known complication of UVC. I get that they didn't initially think this was murder but why wasn't the possibility of it being accidental ever considered? It's not like this has never happened.
What makes you think they’ve not considered the possibility it was accidental?
ETA especially given it’s a known complication. Look how easily tattlers keep finding it.
That’s what I’m thinking. I appreciate we’re quite early on in the trial but so far from the witnesses and the cqc report and rcpch review it feels like this nicu was short staffed, that senior consultants weren’t always around on the ward to help make the best decisions and that staff were reluctant at times and took too long at times to make decisions. (Ps before anyone comes for me, I know these babies so far have probably died outside of working hours so consultant wouldn’t be in the ward anyway they’d be on call only but looking at the reports it seems like they were quite overstretched generally speaking - they were recommended to appoint 2 more consultants.) I don’t feel so far that this baby has been murdered, I feel he’s died as a result of collective failings from the hospital - not maliciously but by many human mistakes/errors, oversights etc. It seems to be a theme even in the maternity wards of that hospital with high stillbirths in the same period. It’s shocking and I think I’ll have to take a break soon from reading it as it is so heavy
I’ve read it’s actually extremely rare and isn’t really documented very much in neonatal care. Does anybody have an idea of how common it is as a cause of death? Can you liken it to something to give some perspective
I really appreciate all the medical knowledge being put on here. It’s really helpful in following the case 
.
.- Status