This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

#IamHadiza: The full story of the legal case that shook medicine

Comment

Dr Pearson and Dr Nadel have said that ' Proper treatment ' would have saved Jack. That is why DR BG was convicted.But, he was IMPROVING anyway with fluids and O2 and antibiotics. He was ' bouncing' so did he need vasopressors/ steroids [ see NEJM 1/3/18] ? I do not think so, so what was proper treatment ? It is not delineated by Drs Pearson/ Nadel that I have read and at what point in time ? Besides, there is a TECHNICAL issue with the Judgement and appeal. At 11] it states that ' DR BG' ignored ' an obvious deteriorating condition' But at 17] it states Jack was better and laughing at 1145 and 2nd clinical blood tests were better. At 14] it states that Jack was bouncing. Since she was convicted by 11]ie ignoring deterioration, when it fact at 14/17] the Judgement states better, the Judgement is CONTRADICTORY and fails ipso facto since there was no deterioration. On the contrary, poor Jack was better and went to a ward around 1800. The Judgement states that the ACEI administration was only marginally contributory. This is supposition. I disagree with the experts, as do thousands and thousands of doctors. I think, no matter what DR BG had done before and she did everything she could in her Timeline [ What else should she have done ? the Experts do not say ], poor Jack suffered catastrophic hypotension and shock due to the ACEI. Can a pathologist tell the difference between endo/ exotoxin shock and ACEI shock ? was it really sepsis or the ACEI at 1900. ?

Posted date

02 Mar 2018

Posted time

12:29pm

required
required
required