Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,670
- Location
- UK
https://virology.ws/author/tuller/?...79neH0ufU9UeuBDgDw_aem_gXFSklFRl39Ld2h_1K21sQ
Dr David Tuller: Dr Weir’s Letters on Treatment of Maeve Boothby O’Neill
- Thread starter Countrygirl
- Start date
And if Dr Weir hadn't put those points down in writing, I bet those physicians would pretend he had never told them any of those things.
It makes me despair to see the level of care and advocacy that Maeve received, the degree to which she tried to advocate for herself - and that the medical establishment killed her anyways.
It makes me despair to see the level of care and advocacy that Maeve received, the degree to which she tried to advocate for herself - and that the medical establishment killed her anyways.
BrightCandle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,239
Maeve had Dr Weir and Dr Strain on side and a GP that thought she needed serious help and even then it wasn't enough. We have letters like this that get dismissed. There are 4 people at the heart of this thing that ignored the guidance and all the advice around them.
Exactly. Very few of us have the resources and family support Maeve had. I'm aware that if I get that bad, I will likely die. The only question is if I will allow the hospital to torture me the three times before finally deciding I've had enough. Instead, I will likely avoid their 'help' and die more peacefully at home.
This is what medicine is doing - they are teaching us to avoid them because of the harm they cause. Which, sadly, will cause more needless deaths.
Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,670
- Location
- UK
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/art...e-just-the-nhs-investigating-itself-6t9w6wtkr
The NHS has been accused of conducting “poor-quality investigations”
JEFF MOORE/PA
The central question for the inquest is: how did the patient die? The inquest is fact-finding. It is not a trial to determine legal liability; there are no parties. The coroner decides the evidence, the witnesses, and the scope of the investigation.
Bereaved relatives have little say. However, it is litigation — whether civil or criminal — that provides an adversarial forum that enables the parties themselves to choose the witnesses and ask appropriate questions to uncover the truth.
The NHS spends huge amounts on legal representation at inquests. Legal rights are neither asserted nor defended, so the purpose must be to protect reputation, a fight over the facts, with the attitude being that it is better that an inquest conclusion is unclear than damaging. The solution is not legal aid for bereaved families to fill the court with yet more expensive lawyers at vast public expense, but to reduce the overall number of lawyers involved in the process. Inquests are fact-finding processes, during which it is difficult to see what lawyers have to contribute apart from intimidating bereaved relatives and billing the public purse.
Independent rigorous clinical scrutiny is vital not only for effective investigation but also for public confidence. Most coroners are not medically qualified — so how do they understand medical issues to identify lines of inquiry?
Too often there are no independent clinical expert witnesses. Instead, the court relies on the testimony of doctors acting both as witnesses of fact and as expert witnesses — a potential conflict of interest. Where is the essential rigorous independent clinical scrutiny? It is the NHS investigating itself, but with the cloak of respectability of a judicial process. Medically qualified coroners, expert witnesses, or medical assessors can provide the essential independent clinical oversight.
Challenging coronial decisions is expensive and cumbersome. Public dissatisfaction seems widespread and largely unaddressed — amply demonstrated by the written evidence submitted to a recent inquiry on coroners by MPs on the justice committee.
The Ministry of Justice has proclaimed that the bereaved should be “at the heart” of the inquest process.
Fine words, but too often the opposite is true.
Anthony Barton is a solicitor, medical practitioner and former assistant coroner; he is joint editor of Clinical Negligence, in its sixth edition from Bloomsbury Professional
Sent from my iPhone
Coroners’ inquests are just the NHS investigating itself
A lack of independent clinical scrutiny leaves the door open for lawyers to put the reputation of the health service above patient safety
Thursday August 01 2024, 12.01am,
The NHS has been accused of conducting “poor-quality investigations”
JEFF MOORE/PA
The central question for the inquest is: how did the patient die? The inquest is fact-finding. It is not a trial to determine legal liability; there are no parties. The coroner decides the evidence, the witnesses, and the scope of the investigation.
Bereaved relatives have little say. However, it is litigation — whether civil or criminal — that provides an adversarial forum that enables the parties themselves to choose the witnesses and ask appropriate questions to uncover the truth.
The NHS spends huge amounts on legal representation at inquests. Legal rights are neither asserted nor defended, so the purpose must be to protect reputation, a fight over the facts, with the attitude being that it is better that an inquest conclusion is unclear than damaging. The solution is not legal aid for bereaved families to fill the court with yet more expensive lawyers at vast public expense, but to reduce the overall number of lawyers involved in the process. Inquests are fact-finding processes, during which it is difficult to see what lawyers have to contribute apart from intimidating bereaved relatives and billing the public purse.
Independent rigorous clinical scrutiny is vital not only for effective investigation but also for public confidence. Most coroners are not medically qualified — so how do they understand medical issues to identify lines of inquiry?
Too often there are no independent clinical expert witnesses. Instead, the court relies on the testimony of doctors acting both as witnesses of fact and as expert witnesses — a potential conflict of interest. Where is the essential rigorous independent clinical scrutiny? It is the NHS investigating itself, but with the cloak of respectability of a judicial process. Medically qualified coroners, expert witnesses, or medical assessors can provide the essential independent clinical oversight.
Challenging coronial decisions is expensive and cumbersome. Public dissatisfaction seems widespread and largely unaddressed — amply demonstrated by the written evidence submitted to a recent inquiry on coroners by MPs on the justice committee.
The Ministry of Justice has proclaimed that the bereaved should be “at the heart” of the inquest process.
Fine words, but too often the opposite is true.
Anthony Barton is a solicitor, medical practitioner and former assistant coroner; he is joint editor of Clinical Negligence, in its sixth edition from Bloomsbury Professional
Sent from my iPhone
Countrygirl
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,670
- Location
- UK
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society...uldnt-find-anything-medically-wrong-p9d2bd0k6
Maeve Boothby O’Neill on her 18th birthday. She had suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome since her early teens
PA
Boothby O’Neill on her seventh birthday
Fox reviewed her during the first of three admissions that year to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital. The inquest has been told that Boothby O’Neill’s symptoms worsened after each admission and she refused a fourth after being told that there was no treatment to alleviate her condition.
She was admitted on March 18 and discharged about ten hours later.
Fox said he believed ME was a real condition but he had not been given specific training on treatment. He said that he had been concerned about Boothby O’Neill’s deteriorating condition. However, she was capable of drinking with minimal assistance and consuming mashed or liquified food, he said, and he was worried that Covid posed a risk to her.
Boothby O’Neill’s GP recorded a note after a conversation with Fox which read “cannot find anything medical, feels it is functional, can drink if she wishes to, can go home, not at all happy, not much reason to keep in”.
Sean O’Neill with his daughter Maeve Boothby O’Neill
Asked by Boothby O’Neill’s father Sean O’Neill, a senior writer at The Times, what he meant when he said that his daughter was “functional”, Fox replied: “It describes individuals able to do a task.
“It’s a broad term, but the evidence we had was that at the time Maeve was capable of eating and drinking a reasonable amount.”
• Sajid Javid: Labour must deliver on ME as patients suffer without a cure
He said that there were “no acute medical issues that had contributed to Maeve’s worsening symptoms” and her strong wish was not to be in hospital if there were no obvious benefits. He denied saying “prepare for the worst” to Maeve’s mother Sarah Boothby.
Doctors recommended Boothby O’Neill be discharged with nutritional supplements but she was unable to tolerate them and rapidly lost weight.
The inquest has previously been told that Boothby O’Neill’s GP had desperately sought solutions for her as her condition worsened and she begged for help to eat. A community dietitian warned that the case was destined for a “tragic outcome” if she did not get specialist help, which was not available.
The inquest also heard from Beth Thompson, an acute dietician at the Royal Devon, whose case notes said that Boothby O’Neill may have been suffering from a psychological condition, such as depression, which made it difficult for her to eat.
Giving evidence, she said that she did not mean that she was “making it up”, adding: “Absolutely not.” She said that patients with chronic health conditions can suffer with both their physical and mental health.
By June 14 Boothby O’Neill had suffered a 25 per cent weight loss to 50kg. She was unable to sit up or eat and took paltry fluids through a syringe.
Thompson said that Boothby O’Neill suffered from a “Catch 22” — her ME would improve with nutrition, but more nutrients were needed to improve her ME symptoms. “No one knew the best thing to do, the risk versus the benefits,” she said, referring to different feeding plans.
The inquest continues.
Sent from my iPhone
Doctor who sent ME patient home ‘couldn’t find anything medically wrong’
Maeve Boothby O’Neill, who later died, was at the ‘very severe end of the spectrum’ of the condition but the consultant told an inquest he had received no specific training on treatment
July 23 2024, 6.45pm
Maeve Boothby O’Neill on her 18th birthday. She had suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome since her early teens
PA
Boothby O’Neill on her seventh birthday
Fox reviewed her during the first of three admissions that year to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital. The inquest has been told that Boothby O’Neill’s symptoms worsened after each admission and she refused a fourth after being told that there was no treatment to alleviate her condition.
She was admitted on March 18 and discharged about ten hours later.
Fox said he believed ME was a real condition but he had not been given specific training on treatment. He said that he had been concerned about Boothby O’Neill’s deteriorating condition. However, she was capable of drinking with minimal assistance and consuming mashed or liquified food, he said, and he was worried that Covid posed a risk to her.
Boothby O’Neill’s GP recorded a note after a conversation with Fox which read “cannot find anything medical, feels it is functional, can drink if she wishes to, can go home, not at all happy, not much reason to keep in”.
Sean O’Neill with his daughter Maeve Boothby O’Neill
Asked by Boothby O’Neill’s father Sean O’Neill, a senior writer at The Times, what he meant when he said that his daughter was “functional”, Fox replied: “It describes individuals able to do a task.
“It’s a broad term, but the evidence we had was that at the time Maeve was capable of eating and drinking a reasonable amount.”
• Sajid Javid: Labour must deliver on ME as patients suffer without a cure
He said that there were “no acute medical issues that had contributed to Maeve’s worsening symptoms” and her strong wish was not to be in hospital if there were no obvious benefits. He denied saying “prepare for the worst” to Maeve’s mother Sarah Boothby.
Doctors recommended Boothby O’Neill be discharged with nutritional supplements but she was unable to tolerate them and rapidly lost weight.
The inquest has previously been told that Boothby O’Neill’s GP had desperately sought solutions for her as her condition worsened and she begged for help to eat. A community dietitian warned that the case was destined for a “tragic outcome” if she did not get specialist help, which was not available.
The inquest also heard from Beth Thompson, an acute dietician at the Royal Devon, whose case notes said that Boothby O’Neill may have been suffering from a psychological condition, such as depression, which made it difficult for her to eat.
Giving evidence, she said that she did not mean that she was “making it up”, adding: “Absolutely not.” She said that patients with chronic health conditions can suffer with both their physical and mental health.
By June 14 Boothby O’Neill had suffered a 25 per cent weight loss to 50kg. She was unable to sit up or eat and took paltry fluids through a syringe.
Thompson said that Boothby O’Neill suffered from a “Catch 22” — her ME would improve with nutrition, but more nutrients were needed to improve her ME symptoms. “No one knew the best thing to do, the risk versus the benefits,” she said, referring to different feeding plans.
The inquest continues.
Sent from my iPhone