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

GP leaders instruct GPs to stop written reflections in light of Bawa-Garba case

Comment

Judges and Juries depend on expert opinion. In this Judgement that of Dr Simon Nadel [ 10] But, he is patently and obviously wrong on several counts. At 10] he states this from the 1st set of tests' Any competent Junior doctor would have realised the condition [ Sepsis] ', the conclusion' DR BG is ' manslaughter negligent' for failure to do so. BUT, when the Consultant Dr O'Riordan is shown these tests at 1630, he does not say ' Gosh, Dr BG, this is severe Sepsis'. HE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE what a junior doctor should have, according to Dr Nadel. So, Dr Nadel is just plainly wrong. However, this is also Dr BG's fault for NOT EMPHASIZING these tests. Come on, this is utter rubbish. Either the tests are recognizable or they are not. The Consultant did not recognise the condition. [ actually because it is equally applicable to ACEI AKI in dehydration] Dr. Nadel's statement is wrong ipso facto and thus so is the conviction There are many other such obvious medical mistakes in his evidence and that is what we should be looking at. THE PRIME PROBLEM is the completely wrong medical expert opinion.

Posted date

09 Mar 2018

Posted time

10:24pm

required
required
required