IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Numbnuts]

11 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

And yet these hyper “unusual” cases (Abbotswood was another) seem to keep on happening in the IOM. No wonder Nobles can’t get anyone to come over from the UK to work for them. 

Didn't one of the Doctors on here suggest this was the case ? Can understand it tbh . 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Boris Johnson]

.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Boris Johnson

[finlo]

5 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

Whenever I have been "Put Under" or for that matter even  just a local anesthetic, I have had to sign a form that says I accept that there is a chance of death with the procedure I am having.

I always understood that the medics do their best and if you die, that is a possible outcome you agree with.

Unless these 4 were indulging in something like  a piss up in the operating room or similar, very unlikely, then I don't see how they can be accused of manslaughter.

Doctors make mistakes all the time, I am not saying this lot did but Doctors do and people die, they are human and we all make mistakes, its human nature to do so.

If Doctors are scared of being charged with manslaughter when ever the operate or work on someone then there will not be many doctors available on the island to save our lives.

Seems like typical IOM mentalist bullshit like Abbots Wood and the imprisonment of covid "rule breakers". 

Maybe they'd been watching Flat liners

[Banker]

25 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

Whenever I have been "Put Under" or for that matter even  just a local anesthetic, I have had to sign a form that says I accept that there is a chance of death with the procedure I am having.

I always understood that the medics do their best and if you die, that is a possible outcome you agree with.

Unless these 4 were indulging in something like  a piss up in the operating room or similar, very unlikely, then I don't see how they can be accused of manslaughter.

Doctors make mistakes all the time, I am not saying this lot did but Doctors do and people die, they are human and we all make mistakes, its human nature to do so.

If Doctors are scared of being charged with manslaughter when ever the operate or work on someone then there will not be many doctors available on the island to save our lives.

Seems like typical IOM mentalist bullshit like Abbots Wood and the imprisonment of covid "rule breakers". 

I assume the case must have been referred to GMC on whether there’s a case to answer?

[cissolt]

Are they still working?  I thought the press reports said they were but on a previous page it mentioned they are suspended

[Jarndyce]

13 hours ago, Banker said:

assume the case must have been referred to GMC on whether there’s a case to answer?

Who was in charge at Nobles when the case was referred?

[2112]

21 hours ago, hissingsid said:

A man has died during routine surgery if there had been any underlying illnesses I doubt this case would exist there must have been procedural  errors.   I doubt this case has been brought lightly as all four are suspended on full pay and have been for some time and it has left the hospital with four anesthetics down.   The devastation it has caused to the family is so sad.

I’ve heard a few rumours as to what’s happened, but the trouble is ………. usual Manx Rumour Mill. This case was referred off island for specialist advice before charges laid. Like you said, I don’t think it was brought lightly. 

[2112]

6 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You might find you’re totally wrong there.

Rumours are bound to be wrong, it will all come out at trial, 

[Gladys]

I don't understand how they are still working yet this case is pending.  Presumably the GMC are satisfied they can still work, possibly on different duties, yet the government still wants to pursue a criminal case against them. 

As usual, very odd.  But this is the IOM which often takes on an Alice in Wonderland perspective of reality. 

BTW I have utmost sympathy for all involved, tragic all round for the family and the medics. It would be disastrous if this case was being used to make a point.  Sadly, it is DHSC again!

[Two-lane]

Looking at this from a non-legal, non-medical, but simply worst-case point of view - if they are continuing to work, and they are found guilty, and in the meantime another "event" has occurred, who is going to end up in court?

[Boo Gay'n]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I don't understand how they are still working yet this case is pending.  Presumably the GMC are satisfied they can still work, possibly on different duties, yet the government still wants to pursue a criminal case against them. 

As usual, very odd.  But this is the IOM which often takes on an Alice in Wonderland perspective of reality. 

BTW I have utmost sympathy for all involved, tragic all round for the family and the medics. It would be disastrous if this case was being used to make a point.  Sadly, it is DHSC again!

You should read Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed.  One of the main case studies is a woman dying during induction of anaesthesia.  She developed a known but very rare reaction to one of the drugs and then suffered catastrophic brain damage because the medics were concentrating so hard on the problem at hand (which prevented them getting an endotracheal tube in place) that they forgot to time how long the patient had been starved of oxygen.  In a high-stress, dynamic crisis, mistakes can happen – sometimes with tragic consequences – but is that criminal?

[hissingsid]

No that would go down as underlying causes I would think.    The weird thing about this prosecution is that four medics are involved and I have never heard of four medics involved in the anaesthesia process of one procedure.  It sounds more like a failure in care that has been allowed to evolve so the whole team has become involved.    Whatever the reason it is desperately sad for the family and all involved I hope it does not drag on like the Abbotswood affair did.   

[John Wright]

@hissingsid you’ve come close to breaching sub judice rules, twice in the last 24 hours. Take care.

Everyone else. This is now sub judice. Try not to speculate about what might, or might not, have occurred in the operating theatre.

Moderators don’t want to have to do mass deletions, or suspensions, or to have to answer letters from the AG’s or Police or adverse comments in court, by Deemsters or advocates alleging breach of sub judice.

[0bserver]

4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

A very strong argument for the press not being allowed to name people until they are actually convicted of something. 

I was very surprised the media gave so many details of those accused. 

[John Wright]

27 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Abbotswood didn’t drag on. The publicity around Abbotswood dragged on but the actual manslaughter case was thrown out in less than an hour on the day of the hearing. A very strong argument for the press not being allowed to name people until they are actually convicted of something. 

 

16 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Given that its fairly common knowledge what happened to the lady at Abbotswood in the run up to the trial (that never happened) if feels fairly irresponsible for them to publish the names and full addresses of all those concerned. Presumably if someone now throws themself under a bus they’ll hide behind the public has a right to know principle. Regardless it seems irresponsible. 

“They”, whoever they are, didn’t report names and addresses of the four anaesthetists until the names and addresses became public after they’d appeared in court, and in common with every other case, in public court, each defendant was asked to confirm their name and address.

So, public information, reported by the media.

Interestingly the Supreme Court of the UK, the same judges who make up the IoM final court of appeal ( Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ) has just decided that it’s an infringement of the right to privacy for anyone suspected of, or being investigated for, an offence to publicly name that person before charge. So, in theory, no more leaks by police or prosecutors, no more naming stories in the UK press.

Its an extension of the principles in the Cliff Richard case. In the recent Supreme Court case the disclosure cost the press £25,000 in damages.

However, the confirming name and address in open court on first appearance, is a statutory requirement. So there’ll have to be legislative changes.

To make it clear, I do support no naming, or identifying, until after conviction.