Seriously?

[northernladyuk]

I particularly like that the headline states that the refugee couple are getting the payout but the article states:

And now the eight-year-old is in line for multi-million-pound NHS compensation because midwives were negligent in failing to tackle the language barrier.

[sasguru]

Now you would probably be the first to accuse someone with Diabetes or a heart condition who is overweight or smoking to be responsible for their condition despite the science on that only being partially proven and coming out in the last 40 years.

.

WTF are you wittering on about?
While people can have a genetic predisposition to either diabetes or heart disease, most often it is in fact their lifestyle to blame.
And in spite of people knowing about it now, in this country diabetes rates are rocketing, as are cancer rates and liver failure rates to due to people's lifestyle. Heart disease is only being kept in check because so many people are on statins.

So spare us your sanctimonious holier-than-thou sh!te.

[northernladyuk]

WTF are you wittering on about?
While people can have a genetic predisposition to either diabetes or heart disease, most often it is in fact their lifestyle to blame.
And in spite of people knowing about it now, in this country diabetes rates are rocketing, as are cancer rates and liver failure rates to due to people's lifestyle. Heart disease is only being kept in check because so many people are on statins.

So spare us your sanctimonious holier-than-thou sh!te.

And those gammons don't look too healthy.

[vetran]

WTF are you wittering on about?
While people can have a genetic predisposition to either diabetes or heart disease, most often it is in fact their lifestyle to blame.
And in spite of people knowing about it now, in this country diabetes rates are rocketing, as are cancer rates and liver failure rates to due to people's lifestyle. Heart disease is only being kept in check because so many people are on statins.

So spare us your sanctimonious holier-than-thou sh!te.

point proven.

[TwoWolves]

It wouldn't be in the Mail otherwise.

Anything to say about the NHS's duty of care to the newborn?

I think it's worth remembering that part of the reason that the NHS is failing patients is that it's overwhelmed. Also, all these translation issues are adding to costs and I don't see how squeezing them further with compensation to people who haven't even contributed to the service in the first place is going to improve that overwhelmed service.

When it comes to virtue signalling everyone seems to lose their powers of reason. We can't fix the world.

[sasguru]

I think it's worth remembering that part of the reason that the NHS is failing patients is that it's overwhelmed. .

Quite. And the evidence (for those of us who look at numbers rather than brain-farting) is that the main reason for that is the rise in the elderly population.
But it's worth pointing out that 60% of the population are overweight, up to 20% are obese, up to 40% drink more than is healthy and the vast majority do very little exercise.
IMHO if one is contributing to the problem, one's voice should be muted when it comes to NHS spending.

This case, BTW, is a legal case about NHS responsibility whatever you think about the correctness of allowing people who haven't contributed to access the NHS.
I tend to agree that we have a nanny state, but that's the way it is, like it or not, and once you have legally allowed someone access the NHS the judges have decided the NHS was responsible for their care.

[northernladyuk]

I think it's worth remembering that part of the reason that the NHS is failing patients is that it's overwhelmed. Also, all these translation issues are adding to costs and I don't see how squeezing them further with compensation to people who haven't even contributed to the service in the first place is going to improve that overwhelmed service.

When it comes to virtue signalling everyone seems to lose their powers of reason. We can't fix the world.

Newborn babies have never contributed, and the duty of care to them, and consequent liability if that fails, exists whatever you think of their parents.

[Lance]

Did the Daily Mail identify the nationality of the midwives?

[vetran]

Quite. And the evidence (for those of us who look at numbers rather than brain-farting) is that the main reason for that is the rise in the elderly population.
But it's worth pointing out that 60% of the population are overweight, up to 20% are obese, up to 40% drink more than is healthy and the vast majority do very little exercise.
IMHO if one is contributing to the problem, one's voice should be muted when it comes to NHS spending.

This case, BTW, is a legal case about NHS responsibility whatever you think about the correctness of allowing people who haven't contributed to access the NHS.
I tend to agree that we have a nanny state, but that's the way it is, like it or not, and once you have legally allowed someone access the NHS the judges have decided the NHS was responsible for their care.

So you don't think observing the targets , being more afraid of risk because it is more likely to result in compensation claims, lack of social care space or removal of mental health services has anything to do with it ?

Are we 18% sicker since 2003?
Are we 60% more likely to require admittance to hospital than 2003?




https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publica...unding-changes

The thing about getting older is it takes time, its not a new thing, people should have planned for it especially in the NHS. Most of the old infirm people I know tend to end up in homes and selling their house to pay for it.


Do we lose on recharge for foreign patients because we fail to ask for the money?

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immig...-pressure-nhs/




If you consider the recipient will be the child it does sort of make sense that we should pay towards its care, however we are already committed to do that via the NHS. However being Sri Lankan refugees maybe they will return home as the Home office now consider it safe? If so a contribution to Sri Lankan healthcare costs makes sense.

My point was that the NHS is being shown as the sole cause of the incident and the parents share no responsibility in what is basic child care. My key point wasn't they hadn't contributed but of course that is a factor, it was that the parents had failed at basic parenting and the NHS was considered responsible.

My last visit to Maternity was like visiting the tower of Babel with the multitude of languages, a large number of the patients required interpreters, many of the patients were disrespectful or very agitated and demanded significant extra effort from the midwives.

It is little surprise that some things are missed and not checked as well as they could be in hindsight,

Oh and while you are brain farting! Glad you mentioned things like diabetes & heart conditions are frequently hereditary but unfortunately changes in treatment cause it as well. Do people on statins have a case for compensation?

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2017...-94308054.html

Overall, statin use was associated with a 36 per cent increased risk of type 2 diabetes development compared to those who did not take the drugs. No link was observed between statin potency in diabetes risk, nor in regard to LDL cholesterol.

While this was an observational study and no causal link between statin use and diabetes risk can be made, the researchers point to evidence suggesting that statins can impair insulin production. This, they believe, could help explain the diabetes risk.

[SueEllen]

I think it's worth remembering that part of the reason that the NHS is failing patients is that it's overwhelmed.

In this particular case, and in the case of other maternity units, it is not being overwhelmed that has been found to be the problem but the poor attitudes of mainly the midwives but sometimes the doctors staffing the units.

In this case I easily found evidence including an official report that showed the problem was the poor attitude of the staff around the time the child was born. This poor attitude lead to the actual death of women.

Also, all these translation issues are adding to costs and I don't see how squeezing them further with compensation to people who haven't even contributed to the service in the first place is going to improve that overwhelmed service.
When it comes to virtue signalling everyone seems to lose their powers of reason. We can't fix the world.

These people are refugees and yes it would be expected that if you accept refugees into the country under the UN mandate to protect refugees you help them as much as possible to access medical care when necessary. Ensuring the baby is feeding properly after birth is part of this medical care, and was the job the midwives failed to do.

I've heard horror stories from English speaking British women who have had difficulties with getting their newborns to feed, so just because someone is a refugee doesn't mean they should get worse treatment. In each of the cases I know about it took the mothers, and sometimes the fathers, to question the midwives and in most cases they had to get doctors involved to find out the problem. People around you can only tell you it isn't normal and what the problem is likely to be, it is up to the people responsible for your treatment to do the actual treatment.

In regards to the compensation - either it comes out of the NHS budget or it comes out of the local council budget given to them by central government. Either way the tax payer pays.

Plus often the compensation is drip fed throughout the child's life. If the child dies the compensation stops as the point of the compensation is to cover the care needs of that child e.g. respite care, adaptation of housing.

It is actually cheaper to compensate the parents rather than for them to give up so the child ends up in foster care.