Is It Always Worth Suing The NHS?

[Followme]

These everyone seems to want to sue everyone else for minor injuries just to get some cash. But if the NHS done something minor, but a company told you to sue, would you?

 

For instance, you are in hospital and they leave the drip on high into your hand and it swells up twice the size. It's very painful, and the staff don't seem to be bothered and just leave you. Hours later the shift changes and the first nurse in quickly turns the drip off. It then takes over 24hrs for the swelling and pain to go away.

 

Now some people may try and sue for that and would probably get a few hundred quid, however I wouldn't even think about it. It would be another matter if I'd lost the hand , but it was only a 24hr issue and mistakes are made.

 

I look at suing the NHS as taking away treatment from someone else, and so would only use it as an option in the most serious of cases.

 

What do you think?

[BazzaS]

These everyone seems to want to sue everyone else for minor injuries just to get some cash. But if the NHS done something minor, but a company told you to sue, would you?

 

For instance, you are in hospital and they leave the drip on high into your hand and it swells up twice the size. It's very painful, and the staff don't seem to be bothered and just leave you. Hours later the shift changes and the first nurse in quickly turns the drip off. It then takes over 24hrs for the swelling and pain to go away.

 

Now some people may try and sue for that and would probably get a few hundred quid, however I wouldn't even think about it. It would be another matter if I'd lost the hand , but it was only a 24hr issue and mistakes are made.

 

I look at suing the NHS as taking away treatment from someone else, and so would only use it as an option in the most serious of cases.

 

What do you think?

 

I think there are 2 main groups of people who sue.

 

1) Those who have at best a mediocre complaint but who are determined to sue no matter what.

 

2) Those who sue in desperation after not receiving an apology or explanation, or a reasonable offer to "make things better or right" - who have felt fobbed off or ignored, or who don't want to sue but feel that nothing will change to avoid the same happening to someone else unless they sue.

 

Neither should have to sue : the first should be dealt with by a robust defence, and the second should be better treated to avoid the need to litigate.

[daisjami]

I dont see the point in suing the NHS, the general public fund it so you'll be taking tax payers money, and most the staff work under such stressful conditions mistakes are bound to happen now and again. What do you expect to happen in a building full of hundreds of sick people.Morally I reckon it would be wrong to sue over minor things but when major accidents occur then sometimes lessons can be learnt.

[BazzaS]

I dont see the point in suing the NHS, the general public fund it so you'll be taking tax payers money, and most the staff work under such stressful conditions mistakes are bound to happen now and again. What do you expect to happen in a building full of hundreds of sick people.Morally I reckon it would be wrong to sue over minor things but when major accidents occur then sometimes lessons can be learnt.

 

If a mistake is made, the NHS has a duty to make it right if possible. If not possible, then compensation to mitigate the detriment should be offered.

If a mistake by the NHS put you in a wheelchair, why should you not get compensation to mean you get housed in a bungalow with adaptations to limit the effect on you?.

It might not give you back the use of your legs, it might be that no one deliberately or carelessly made a mistake, but why shouldn't the NHS do what it can to make a bad situation less bad (not 'good', not 'better', but 'less bad')

 

As an organisation, the NHS should be better at admitting mistakes, preventing them recurring, and dealing with their effects.

 

If it was more robust at rejecting the "chancers" while better at dealing with those with justifiable complaints : less litigation would be needed.

[Nystagmite]

I think there are 2 main groups of people who sue.

 

1) Those who have at best a mediocre complaint but who are determined to sue no matter what.

 

I used to know someone like this. She tried (can't remember the outcome) to sue the NHS for not giving her an x-ray, which apparently led to her developing a tissue disorder or something. And she always sues when she has a car accident.

 

People like her give genuine people a bad name. I used to know someone whose parents sued the NHS. They knew that she has cerebral palsy and she was starved of oxygen at birth, which left her severely disabled. In her case, I can understand suing the NHS.

 

and most the staff work under such stressful conditions mistakes are bound to happen now and again.

 

That's no excuse.

[Night Owl]

Hi Followme.

An interesting debate.

 

These everyone seems to want to sue everyone else for minor injuries just to get some cash. But if the NHS done something minor, but a company told you to sue, would you? Who was the company and what would they get out of it? Probably a fat commission should you succeed.

 

For instance, you are in hospital and they leave the drip on high into your hand and it swells up twice the size. It's very painful, and the staff don't seem to be bothered and just leave you. Were the staff informed that there was pain and swelling from this?

Hours later the shift changes and the first nurse in quickly turns the drip off. It then takes over 24hrs for the swelling and pain to go away.

 

Certain fluids and medication can cause serious harm to tissues if extravisation happens ( where the fluid leaks into the tissues and not flows into a patent and secure vein).

Extravisation can not only cause pain and swelling of a limb but also potentially permanent tissue damage. At the worst scenario extravisation can cause death of tissue and the need for amputation.

 

Swelling can be reduced by elevating the limb and allowing the fluid to disperse. There are emergency procedures for extravistation caused by vesicant medication that could potentially cause tissue damage. These sorts of medication would only be used in specialist units with specially trained staff to monitor.

 

Now some people may try and sue for that and would probably get a few hundred quid, Is it the aim of suing to get "a few quid"? however I wouldn't even think about it. It would be another matter if I'd lost the hand , but it was only a 24hr issue and mistakes are made. Sadly they do but we are all human. Maybe we need to break this constant blame culture.

 

I look at suing the NHS as taking away treatment from someone else, and so would only use it as an option in the most serious of cases.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that if you have a genuine concern then take it up with the staff AT THE TIME OF DISCOVERY. Allow them to redress what has happened and try to put things right, to allow for an explanation for what has happened and to apologise.

People who have concerns have every right to speak out AT THAT TIME. Don't leave it 3 months after getting home and talking to friends who advise suing for money.

Speak to the Hospital LIASE or PALS staff.

 

Incident forms ARE completed for incidents and Root Cause Analysis procedures break down the flow of the incident to identify where the errors happened and what can be changed to prevent it happening again.

 

We all deserve and expect the NHS to work when we or friends and family are sick. Short staffing will always be the biggest battle to acheive but we are all desperately trying to acheive this.

The lifting of the Wistleblowing Clause may make a start but staff are still intimidated that they may loose their job.

Unions are fighting but progress is slow.