Doctor or Hospital Negligence?

[kurvaface]

The problem with that approach Frankie is you'll have clinicians avoiding risky patients like the plague.

[Sali]

I'm more inclined to agree with Frankieg. At the moment there appears to be no accountability. We have Chief Execs walking away from Trusts where many people have suffered and died with 6 months pay and substantial pensions. We have many doctors who are grossly incompetent, yet are still allowed to practice. Where is the protection for the patient when things go wrong or care is sub-standard?

 

We cannot rely on the CQC or the GMC, or even the Ombudsman. We certainly cannot rely on the hospital managers whose sole aim appears to be to hide failure and evade blame. Unless this changes, sadly, the only course of action for the aggrieved is to litigate.

 

I imagine in the States if a medic is sued often and loses often, he can no longer get insurance and no longer practice.

[danielr]

I note flyingdoc's comment

 

"Basically if there is a body of medical opinion that supports the actions taken by all the practitioners involved then there is no negligence."

 

I have no trust that my hospital's practitioners will remain objective when faced with a complaint. They are like muskateers, all for one and one for all! .

I think that you're taking the remark out of context. If I walk into a hospital complaining of a mild headache, is it right to give me pain killers/paracetamol? (which is what I'd take if I were at home with a headache), or is it right to do an MRI scan to check for tumours in my head?

 

it wouldn't be unreasonably to just prescribe pain killers, and if I died in the night, it wouldn't be through the hospitals negligence for not recommending tens/hundreds/thousands of tests when I complained only of one mild symptom.

 

Same issue here, on the balance of probability what would be the correct way to check something. what is the correct course of action, what would a reasonable, competent person do?

 

if the doctor took action A, but a reasonable competent doctor, and all medical text books in the world say that action B should have been taken then the doctor could be accused of negligence.

 

if the doctor takes an action and is backed up by virtually all medical texts and opinions by reasonable competent people, then they aren't negligent because they acted in a reasonable and competent manner, -not a negligent manner.

 

I've been a nurse for 40 years both in the UK and the USA. And since I've been back in the UK i've been horrified at the absolute negligence taking place in the NHS. Take this case. As far as I'm concerned it's not normal for someone who dosent have a history of bowel problems to need enemas! Sounds as if she was developing and intestinal obstruction and needed investigating and not to do so is negligent. In the USA the hospital, doctors and nurses are all held acountable and can be sued for millions of dollars and thats what's needed here in the UK. The only thing that will make the govenment and hospital bosses take note is to hit them in the pocket.

Suing for millions is all well and good, but provided that the damage should be for millions...

 

the the case that the OP state says;

It turned out to be a cyst the size of a 9 month baby, which would take her back to March from when she started having pains.

 

 

She then had about 3 months off work, still gets pain (she said its starting on her left side but is reluctant to go back to the doctors after last time) and not has a scar on her tummy which she feels awkward about.

 

so the compensation is for what? the nine months of pain? 3 months off work, (for some of which time the OP may have been paid anyway). the fact that there is still pain, or the fact that following surgery there is a scar? is it that there is a large scar and HAD the op have recieved treatment earlier there may not be as big of a scar?

 

and how are you applying monetary value to all of these things? aside from the time off work it' difficult to work out the values of any of those things.

 

and I don't think that millions of pounds is a figure that I'd apply to any of those things, (that's my personal opinion on the matter I'm in no way trying to belittle the OP (or their daughter) or the pain suffered by both).

[frankieg]

No doctors in the USA dont avoid treating very sick people for the simple reason that as long as they treat them compently there isnt any grounds for claims of negligence. As for this woman she whould be entitled to substancial damages because she's suffered and still suffering pain, physical and emotional distress, loss of earnings and the possiably dangerous delay in treatment (which could have killed her) can still cause serious complications for the rest of her life She had enough symptions that it was negligent not to scan or at least x ray her. Not like the headache example- why would someone go into a hospital with a mild headache? One treatable with mild painkillers so and of course in the UK furthur tests wouldnt be ordered. In the USA you might have a scan but your insurance company would probably refuse to pay the bill leaving you to pay a couple of thousand dollars. More likely you'd recieve a verbal kick in the pants and a warning that if you persist in abusing hospital time with trivil complaints you will be banned from the ER . But if you went in with recurrant severe headaches that hadnt respond to conventional treatment you should expect at minimum a complete physical examination with special attention to the eyes, your balance and gait, speech and mental stautus to rule out a brain tumor, haemorrage or other problem like mennigitis. If there was any other sign apart from the headache then it would be negligence not to order furthur tests. If there is only the 'mild ' headache and you died that night thats not negligence because the doctor based his actions on the signs and symptions you presented with. oh sorry about the soap box but I'm a great believer in people acepting responsability for their actions and if it takes hitting them in their pocket - have at it.

Edited January 5, 2010 by frankieg
spelling

[danielr]

The headache analogy was bad, but the reason that I used it was very simple, lots of people have headaches, and the stock treatment for a headache is a tablet. BUT headaches CAN be symptomatic of larger problems. it does not necessarily mean that they are.

 

I was over simplifying to point out what negligence is, and what would not be negligence. not picking up on something is fine and not negligent provided that all reasonable investigations were performed in a competent manner. just as you've said, doctors in the USA aren't afraid to treat patients, because provided they can show that they acted reasonably and competently there is no negligence, and no problem.

 

for the second part of your post, that's exactly the point that I was making there is original pain, misdiagnosis, continued pain, extended surgery required because of the misdiagnosis...

 

so yes, there is a blame to be laid on medical establishment for not diagnosing correctly sooner, and there is possibly a claim for negligence to be made.

 

I was just asking how you assign a monetary value to a claim?

you say millions, how many millions? what is the figure based on?

 

how do you calculate the monetary value of physical or emotional distress?

[frankieg]

I do agree with you on how hard it is to put a monetry value on a ruined life. In the USA its very complicated and based on so many things. Loss of medical insurance, future earnings, how it affects any childrens standard of living and thats the easy part. when its a child I've known it to 5 or 6 million dollars to provide for lifetime care. But remember there' s not much in the way of social care so thats why the payouts are high. Pain and suffering, thats a difficult one, For this lady i supose she should be compensated for the affect the illness had on her life and for how it stopped her doing the things she use to enjoy. Moneyto pay for things to made life easier for her- house adaptions, home help that kind of thing. And the NHS should pay for her to have specialist private care from now on and pay loss of earnings and any out of pocket expenses -couple hundred thousand pounds maybe. But when their negligence maims or kills someone with a young family, ruins the childrens future, destroys a normal family life, condems the patient to a miserable life that kind of situation 2 or 3 million pounds dosent seem too much to me.

[Maggie_moo]

For this lady i supose she should be compensated for the affect the illness had on her life and for how it stopped her doing the things she use to enjoy. Moneyto pay for things to made life easier for her- house adaptions' date=' home help that kind of thing.[/quote']

 

Are you referring to the OP's partner?