suing the NHS

[redstriper]

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2019 10:37:45 GMT redstriper said:

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

I think it is very dangerous to say the NHS is exempt from claims against it. No company is perfect and whilst I think doctors should be protected, no-one should be completely unaccountable for their actions.

[bathstoke]

Nov 18, 2019 10:52:48 GMT @lilfraise said:

Nov 18, 2019 10:37:45 GMT redstriper said:

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

I think it is very dangerous to say the NHS is exempt from claims against it. No company is perfect and whilst I think doctors should be protected, no-one should be completely unaccountable for their actions.

Drs aren’t protected, they have to pay a high level of insurance to protect themselves.

[redstriper]

I'm not saying no accountability, the fast track enquiry would establish if errors were made and any required follow up. Hopefully improvements to procedures.

[4372]

Nov 18, 2019 10:37:45 GMT redstriper said:

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

How wrong can one post be? It does happen that mistakes have long term and life changing impacts on people. At any stage of their lives. Sort the vexatious litigants by all means.

[redstriper]

Nov 18, 2019 16:51:44 GMT 4372 said:

Nov 18, 2019 10:37:45 GMT redstriper said:

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

How wrong can one post be? It does happen that mistakes have long term and life changing impacts on people. At any stage of their lives. Sort the vexatious litigants by all means.

You missed out "IMO".

Unless of course you are so arrogant to think your are always right ?

[4372]

Not the point at all. Your initial post seemed to show considerable disregard for the facts. I am sure there are vexatious litigants. But to suggest that all compensation should be limited to the equivalent of two years loss of earnings is baseless. What would you suggest happens then to a young person, highly educated and full of promise and potential,and their life is irrevocably changed by a medical error? Here you go,there's £50,000?
How do you even begin to workout the compensation in such cases? How do you even start to form an independent life when that happens?
Everybody makes mistakes in their lives. When a Doctor gets it wrong the impact can be huge, but I do not see why an individual should suffer more than absolutely necessary because you think,apparently of the top of your head,that Two years money is "about right"

[sheikhmomo]

I was expecting to see a thread about the odious Richard Branson when I clicked on this.

[Northy]

I remember this legal battle from years ago, Blair's government total cock up of the NHS digitising systems

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464002

[wizzardofdribble]

Nov 18, 2019 10:52:48 GMT @lilfraise said:

Nov 18, 2019 10:37:45 GMT redstriper said:

Back in the news again

link


Whilst I feel very sorry for the person concerned. Nobody IMO should be allowed to sue the NHS for a free service, there's 2 billion quids worth of unresolved claims, diverting resources from the front line and fuelling ambulance chasing lawyer leeches.


A Politician with balls would ban it. But sadly they are all shit scared of suggesting anything for the NHS other than shovelling more money into it.

Where mistakes are made, a fast track enquiry to establish the reasons, and provide automatic compensation equivalent to loss of earnings only, for a maximum of two years.

I think it is very dangerous to say the NHS is exempt from claims against it. No company is perfect and whilst I think doctors should be protected, no-one should be completely unaccountable for their actions.

Gross negligence claims against the NHS do not come out of the clinical budget either.

The NHS is insured against claims.

Completely different budget.

Clinical negligence can lead to a lifetime of 24/7 care for the affected person.

If a child has to be peg fed for example, as a result of negligence, that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

If a child loses their vision, speech, mobility becomes severely epileptic and is peg fed. Has to travel between different hospitals around the UK. Has massively reduced life expectency.

Because the wrong operation was carried out.

Why shouldn't parents take legal action?

Especially when the mother has a breakdown and all the care is left to the Father?

Who then has to give up a well paid job to look after his daughter on a fraction of the money he would be earning?

Does anyone who hasn't been through this have a fucking clue how it affects people?

Peoples families?

Other siblings?

And a Legal case can take a long time to be settled even after the hospital has accepted Full Liability.

This is because of the effects in some cases where neurological damage might lead to further complications.

A case might start when a child is 3 but not finish until they're 18.

That's the way it works.

By then the parents are usually too exhausted and deflated to care.

[musik]

About this case.
To begin with, absolutely dreadful that one, Huntington's disease.
Question is, is it certain she will develop Huntington's disease just because she carries the gene?

As I understand it she is claiming £345.000 because she wasn't informed about her father's disease. And in turn, her father didn't want her to know about it in the first place. At least they say so ...
And it's unclear if the child carries the gene. Right?

I don't think she will get what she wants. Maybe later on if her child develops the disease.

In Sweden we have the lowest levels of compensation there is.
If a birth goes completely wrong and the couple have a child before, they can usually get nothing.
If by mistake a person gets deaf on one ear, the levels are £250 to £400 (3000-5000 SEK).
I, myself, was mistreated by a doctor 30 years ago, which affected the rest of my life, but didn't get anything automatically. I had a student insurance that gave me something but not much.
A lawyer was contacted and I possibly could get some compensation, but it would have required many many days in court and I didn't have the power to go through with it then. And if I did lose, what could I have done then? Beginning my life with enormous amounts of court debts as well?

Later I found out the usual compensation, for what happened to me, in the USA is 20 million SEK (=£1.639.344). But it's over there, not here where it happened.

Take care out there and avoid hospitals!

[redstriper]

Interestingly there is some cross party support for this - not often i agree with the guardian...

link

[redstriper]

Nov 18, 2019 17:20:55 GMT 4372 said:

Not the point at all. Your initial post seemed to show considerable disregard for the facts. I am sure there are vexatious litigants. But to suggest that all compensation should be limited to the equivalent of two years loss of earnings is baseless. What would you suggest happens then to a young person, highly educated and full of promise and potential,and their life is irrevocably changed by a medical error? Here you go,there's £50,000?
How do you even begin to workout the compensation in such cases? How do you even start to form an independent life when that happens?
Everybody makes mistakes in their lives. When a Doctor gets it wrong the impact can be huge, but I do not see why an individual should suffer more than absolutely necessary because you think,apparently of the top of your head,that Two years money is "about right"

Of course there are going to be individual cases where you can cite that a rule seems unfair, that is the nature of any form of financial compensation. Of course its going to seem harsh in some cases, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. There is a dearth of positive suggestions at the moment because politicians are too scared to address the issue.

Maybe you're one of those who thinks the NHS is above reform, above scrutiny, and simply has to have more money poured in at unsustainable levels until the country implodes under the debt.

Two years gives people a chance to adjust to their new circumstances, and find another way to earn if they haven't recovered sufficiently to do their old job. If they can no longer work clearly their lifetime care would be paid by the benefits system on top of this, thereby adding up to a very big sum anyway. So why change it ?... because the lawyers get cut out of the equation and stop taking a big share, and huge amounts of NHS resources are freed up from having the cases run for years.

[Deleted]

For the 232833rd time - It's not fucking free.

I agree that too many people sue the NHS and that some of the cases where a GP or consultant are accused of failing to spot something are taking the piss. If gross negligence is proven then the impact of that mistake has to be understood and the right compensation given.

You'd hope that a growing number of compensation claims would help the NHS improve the quality of staff they recruit.

[estrangedsonoffaye]

Nov 19, 2019 10:13:34 GMT musik said:

About this case.
To begin with, absolutely dreadful that one, Huntington's disease.
Question is, is it certain she will develop Huntington's disease just because she carries the gene?

As I understand it she is claiming £345.000 because she wasn't informed about her father's disease. And in turn, her father didn't want her to know about it in the first place. At least they say so ...
And it's unclear if the child carries the gene. Right?

I don't think she will get what she wants. Maybe later on if her child develops the disease.

In Sweden we have the lowest levels of compensation there is.
If a birth goes completely wrong and the couple have a child before, they can usually get nothing.
If by mistake a person gets deaf on one ear, the levels are £250 to £400 (3000-5000 SEK).
I, myself, was mistreated by a doctor 30 years ago, which affected the rest of my life, but didn't get anything automatically. I had a student insurance that gave me something but not much.
A lawyer was contacted and I possibly could get some compensation, but it would have required many many days in court and I didn't have the power to go through with it then. And if I did lose, what could I have done then? Beginning my life with enormous amounts of court debts as well?

Later I found out the usual compensation, for what happened to me, in the USA is 20 million SEK (=£1.639.344). But it's over there, not here where it happened.

Take care out there and avoid hospitals!

Not certain as Huntingtons is a dominant autosomal genetic disease which means you have a 50% chance of picking it up.

This is because you receive an allele (variation of a gene) from your mother and father for one gene. (So called diploid organisms). As the mutation for huntingtons is dominant, you only need one mutated allele to develop the condition, it looks a bit like this:


H: mutated gene
h: normal gene


So if the mother is Hh (she apparently is from her gene test) and the father is hh the child could be: hh (no disease) or Hh (huntingtons disease positive).

Huntingtons is particularly awful because of that risk, whereas something like cystic fibrosis is what is called Autosomal Recessive, which means you need two copies of the mutated gene to develop the disease. Which is why more people are "carriers" of cystic fibrosis than actually suffer from it. If two carriers produce a child, it has a 25% chance of developing the disease.


C: normal gene
c: mutated gene

Can produce: Cc (symptomless but a carrier) CC (healthy) or cc (cystic fibrosis positive).

[mickmillslovechild]

Nov 19, 2019 12:53:29 GMT redstriper said:

Interestingly there is some cross party support for this - not often i agree with the guardian...

link

So you think that the NHS NOT being accountable for their actions will somehow make them wake up and change their practices for the better?

If you genuinely think "Oh they won't have to be punished but they'll just voluntarily sink millions into improving their services for the better anyway so it doesn't happen again" then you're absolutely delusional. Try looking at the problems many hospitals (who had enquiries in the past) still face now!!

All that article is doing is basically blaming the victims of negligence for the abject failure of the NHS in these cases..."We can't improve it because you nasty people who we fucked over are now asking us to be punished for not providing the service you spent your whole working life paying us for".

It's disgraceful bullshit written by someone who clearly has no idea about real life and the challenges real people have to face because of other people's negligence, probably because she has private healthcare.

As has been stated, it is NOT (nor ever has been) a free service. WE as members of the public pay for the service, so if that service is not provided to a suitable standard, then enquiries should be held. If it is provided in a negligent way, then some form of recompense is apt and 100% warranted.

I suggest you join the real world, visit some people who are now unable to work for the rest of their lives due to medical negligence or malpractice, speak to their friends and families who have to give up their work and lives to care for them, actually try to become aware (in real terms) how these miraculous benefits you talk about actually help (they don't even come close to covering expenses of the individual in most cases, let alone make up for the loss it also causes the rest of the family who now have to centre their lives around the care of that person) and try laying the blame where it lies, instead of victim blaming and telling them it's somehow now THEIR responsibility to adapt and change rest of their life because someone else (who had a responsibility of care towards them) fucked their life up beyond repair.

"Well i now have to live the remainder of my life with my family caring for me, feeding me, washing me, helping me go to the toilet and my family's and friend's lives now have to revolve around caring for me on a day to day basis, but hey ho at least they're holding an enquiry eh!"

Disgusting really

If they want to use the fund that was put aside for these cases to better use, then there's a far more pallatable solution than asking the victims to simply shut up and go away i.e. do their job properly in the first place and these cases will become fewer! If that means us paying a few pence in the pound extra in taxrs in order to bring in much needed extra resources then so be it. I'd be far happier to do that than to turn away victims and tell them "Yeah we fucked up but tough shit. You have 2 years to adapt and find a new career, after that fuck off, we're not helping any further".

[redstriper]

Nov 19, 2019 13:47:01 GMT mickmillslovechild said:

Nov 19, 2019 12:53:29 GMT redstriper said:

Interestingly there is some cross party support for this - not often i agree with the guardian...

link

So you think that the NHS NOT being accountable for their actions will somehow make them wake up and change their practices for the better?

If you genuinely think "Oh they won't have to be punished but they'll just voluntarily sink millions into improving their services for the better anyway so it doesn't happen again" then you're absolutely delusional. Try looking at the problems many hospitals (who had enquiries in the past) still face now!!

All that article is doing is basically blaming the victims of negligence for the abject failure of the NHS in these cases..."We can't improve it because you nasty people who we fucked over are now asking us to be punished for not providing the service you spent your whole working life paying us for".

It's disgraceful bullshit written by someone who clearly has no idea about real life and the challenges real people have to face because of other people's negligence, probably because she has private healthcare.

As has been stated, it is NOT (nor ever has been) a free service. WE as members of the public pay for the service, so if that service is not provided to a suitable standard, then enquiries should be held. If it is provided in a negligent way, then some form of recompense is apt and 100% warranted.

I suggest you join the real world, visit some people who are now unable to work for the rest of their lives due to medical negligence or malpractice, speak to their friends and families who have to give up their work and lives to care for them, actually try to become aware (in real terms) how these miraculous benefits you talk about actually help (they don't even come close to covering expenses of the individual in most cases, let alone make up for the loss it also causes the rest of the family who now have to centre their lives around the care of that person) and try laying the blame where it lies, instead of victim blaming and telling them it's somehow now THEIR responsibility to adapt and change rest of their life because someone else (who had a responsibility of care towards them) fucked their life up beyond repair.

"Well i now have to live the remainder of my life with my family caring for me, feeding me, washing me, helping me go to the toilet and my family's and friend's lives now have to revolve around caring for me on a day to day basis, but hey ho at least they're holding an enquiry eh!"

Disgusting really

If they want to use the fund that was put aside for these cases to better use, then there's a far more pallatable solution than asking the victims to simply shut up and go away i.e. do their job properly in the first place and these cases will become fewer! If that means us paying a few pence in the pound extra in taxrs in order to bring in much needed extra resources then so be it. I'd be far happier to do that than to turn away victims and tell them "Yeah we fucked up but tough shit. You have 2 years to adapt and find a new career, after that fuck off, we're not helping any further".

Maybe you should try reading the whole thread before going off on one ?

I had clearly stated that the service would still be held accountable via a fast track process. It is simply in nobodies interest for these cases to drag on over years whilst the lawyers get richer. No system is going to be perfect, but if you're happy with the current one try typing in "suing the nhs" into google and count the parasites listed on pay per click.

If you ever find yourself in a situation whereby you do your best for someone and they turn around and sue you don't come bleating on here either, maybe you'll be trapped facing an unjust negligence claim for 5 years or so. The system is loaded towards the self entitled chancers with a scar from their third free boob job and loaded against hard working medical staff. But don't let that bother you. The NHS is not sustainable in its current form and your knee jerk reaction is why the politicians wont dare change it.

[mickmillslovechild]

Nov 19, 2019 14:26:42 GMT redstriper said:

Nov 19, 2019 13:47:01 GMT mickmillslovechild said:

So you think that the NHS NOT being accountable for their actions will somehow make them wake up and change their practices for the better?

If you genuinely think "Oh they won't have to be punished but they'll just voluntarily sink millions into improving their services for the better anyway so it doesn't happen again" then you're absolutely delusional. Try looking at the problems many hospitals (who had enquiries in the past) still face now!!

All that article is doing is basically blaming the victims of negligence for the abject failure of the NHS in these cases..."We can't improve it because you nasty people who we fucked over are now asking us to be punished for not providing the service you spent your whole working life paying us for".

It's disgraceful bullshit written by someone who clearly has no idea about real life and the challenges real people have to face because of other people's negligence, probably because she has private healthcare.

As has been stated, it is NOT (nor ever has been) a free service. WE as members of the public pay for the service, so if that service is not provided to a suitable standard, then enquiries should be held. If it is provided in a negligent way, then some form of recompense is apt and 100% warranted.

I suggest you join the real world, visit some people who are now unable to work for the rest of their lives due to medical negligence or malpractice, speak to their friends and families who have to give up their work and lives to care for them, actually try to become aware (in real terms) how these miraculous benefits you talk about actually help (they don't even come close to covering expenses of the individual in most cases, let alone make up for the loss it also causes the rest of the family who now have to centre their lives around the care of that person) and try laying the blame where it lies, instead of victim blaming and telling them it's somehow now THEIR responsibility to adapt and change rest of their life because someone else (who had a responsibility of care towards them) fucked their life up beyond repair.

"Well i now have to live the remainder of my life with my family caring for me, feeding me, washing me, helping me go to the toilet and my family's and friend's lives now have to revolve around caring for me on a day to day basis, but hey ho at least they're holding an enquiry eh!"

Disgusting really

If they want to use the fund that was put aside for these cases to better use, then there's a far more pallatable solution than asking the victims to simply shut up and go away i.e. do their job properly in the first place and these cases will become fewer! If that means us paying a few pence in the pound extra in taxrs in order to bring in much needed extra resources then so be it. I'd be far happier to do that than to turn away victims and tell them "Yeah we fucked up but tough shit. You have 2 years to adapt and find a new career, after that fuck off, we're not helping any further".

Maybe you should try reading the whole thread before going off on one ?

I had clearly stated that the service would still be held accountable via a fast track process. It is simply in nobodies interest for these cases to drag on over years whilst the lawyers get richer. No system is going to be perfect, but if you're happy with the current one try typing in "suing the nhs" into google and count the parasites listed on pay per click.

If you ever find yourself in a situation whereby you do your best for someone and they turn around and sue you don't come bleating on here either, maybe you'll be trapped facing an unjust negligence claim for 5 years or so. The system is loaded towards the self entitled chancers with a scar from their third free boob job and loaded against hard working medical staff. But don't let that bother you. The NHS is not sustainable in its current form and your knee jerk reaction is why the politicians wont dare change it.

My standpoint isn't knee-jerk and is taken from real life as i have direct experience of people's lives being effected on a very real basis due to medical negligence, you arrogant prick.

I'm guessing you have no such experience from your "2 years is enough time to adapt and they'll be on benefits anyway" garbage. You've come up with ideas written on the back of a fag packet with no real knowledge, care or insight into the actual way people's lives can be effected.

Until you actually do some research into the shit you're spouting, i suggest you sit back and take it on the chin from people who actually DO know how these things work in real life rather than just on paper.

[redstriper]

No problem with you disagreeing, and I understand if personal experience means you get a bit emotive about it, but why the personal abuse ?... disappointing to say the least, and detracts from your argument.


this just illustrates the point that the NHS is untouchable. Best leave it here.

[4372]

Nov 19, 2019 13:06:42 GMT redstriper said:

Nov 18, 2019 17:20:55 GMT 4372 said:

Not the point at all. Your initial post seemed to show considerable disregard for the facts. I am sure there are vexatious litigants. But to suggest that all compensation should be limited to the equivalent of two years loss of earnings is baseless. What would you suggest happens then to a young person, highly educated and full of promise and potential,and their life is irrevocably changed by a medical error? Here you go,there's £50,000?
How do you even begin to workout the compensation in such cases? How do you even start to form an independent life when that happens?
Everybody makes mistakes in their lives. When a Doctor gets it wrong the impact can be huge, but I do not see why an individual should suffer more than absolutely necessary because you think,apparently of the top of your head,that Two years money is "about right"

Of course there are going to be individual cases where you can cite that a rule seems unfair, that is the nature of any form of financial compensation. Of course its going to seem harsh in some cases, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. There is a dearth of positive suggestions at the moment because politicians are too scared to address the issue.

Maybe you're one of those who thinks the NHS is above reform, above scrutiny, and simply has to have more money poured in at unsustainable levels until the country implodes under the debt.

Two years gives people a chance to adjust to their new circumstances, and find another way to earn if they haven't recovered sufficiently to do their old job. If they can no longer work clearly their lifetime care would be paid by the benefits system on top of this, thereby adding up to a very big sum anyway. So why change it ?... because the lawyers get cut out of the equation and stop taking a big share, and huge amounts of NHS resources are freed up from having the cases run for years.


I wrote yesterday about how wrong you can be in one post. You have apparently doubled down on your error. Maybe I am not one of those who thinks the NHS is above reform blah blah blah… Maybe I happen to have been at close quarters with an individual who suffered as a result of medical negligence over 40 years ago, and whose treatment at the time can still bring me to tears even now.

[xchpotter]

I’m all for stopping these slimy, blood sucking solicitors making bucket loads out of the NHS along with many of the scummy claims people they suck up to. However, on occasions when there is such gross negligence on display their has to be some form of threat there to make them shape up. I think certain claims should be dismissed out right and only serious ones with a systematic and obviously negligent error being on offer. Add in a max fee that solicitors can claim and it should weed a lot of the claims.

[rivival]

An examining Dr accused me of fakery as he said my muscles were not that weak despite his much younger assistant and my wife assuring him I was not putting it on.

The whole thing left me shaking in anger and crying in shock as I was FINALLY going to get a diagnosis after years of problems.

3 weeks later I had my stroke.

Bastard should have been struck off instead NOTHING was said. There are people that make genuine mistakes and then there are those with pre conceived opinions peddling an agenda.

All medical examinations should be recorded. Along with all medical advice given at the time.

[bathstoke]

Nov 20, 2019 3:11:29 GMT rivival said:

An examining Dr accused me of fakery as he said my muscles were not that weak despite his much younger assistant and my wife assuring him I was not putting it on.

The whole thing left me shaking in anger and crying in shock as I was FINALLY going to get a diagnosis after years of problems.

3 weeks later I had my stroke.

Bastard should have been struck off instead NOTHING was said. There are people that make genuine mistakes and then there are those with pre conceived opinions peddling an agenda.

All medical examinations should be recorded. Along with all medical advice given at the time.

That’s tough, I thought you were going to give a diagnosis of exclusion, but stroke!
How long ago was this & how are you now...

[foster]

Nov 20, 2019 6:33:35 GMT bathstoke said:

Nov 20, 2019 3:11:29 GMT rivival said:

An examining Dr accused me of fakery as he said my muscles were not that weak despite his much younger assistant and my wife assuring him I was not putting it on.

The whole thing left me shaking in anger and crying in shock as I was FINALLY going to get a diagnosis after years of problems.

3 weeks later I had my stroke.

Bastard should have been struck off instead NOTHING was said. There are people that make genuine mistakes and then there are those with pre conceived opinions peddling an agenda.

All medical examinations should be recorded. Along with all medical advice given at the time.

That’s tough, I thought you were going to give a diagnosis of exclusion, but stroke!
How long ago was this & how are you now...

Similar happened to my mum.

Years of medical examinations and GP appointments and they kept telling her that she's not as bad off as she seemed and that she should 'exercise' more, even though she had breathing problems, arthritis, prior cancer and a total hip replacement. They just kept prescribing her pain killers.

Then last January she had a stroke, then a full cardiac arrest, went into a coma and suffered multiple organ failure. After 4 days of watching her spasm and twitch on life support we came to the decision to turn it off.

Afterwards when we received a copy of all her medical records it transpired that she had COPD (noted a year earlier), influenza (at the time of her stroke), and other complications that were recorded but never shared with us or treated.

Sorry to hear about your stroke revival. I can only recommend that you go private if you want to ensure you get the proper diagnosis and treatment in future.

[rivival]

Nov 20, 2019 6:33:35 GMT bathstoke said:

Nov 20, 2019 3:11:29 GMT rivival said:

An examining Dr accused me of fakery as he said my muscles were not that weak despite his much younger assistant and my wife assuring him I was not putting it on.

The whole thing left me shaking in anger and crying in shock as I was FINALLY going to get a diagnosis after years of problems.

3 weeks later I had my stroke.

Bastard should have been struck off instead NOTHING was said. There are people that make genuine mistakes and then there are those with pre conceived opinions peddling an agenda.

All medical examinations should be recorded. Along with all medical advice given at the time.

That’s tough, I thought you were going to give a diagnosis of exclusion, but stroke!
How long ago was this & how are you now...

This was 14 years ago now, I'm still here is how I am on a lifetime of pills as stents are not really an option with the blockages being too close to my heart.

This wonderful government says I can work however, my Dr says not as It's good days and bad days with Angina, Arthritis, Polyarthritis and other complications. Never mind I'm alive which is more than many are thanks to the agenda set by these murdering bastards and their pre-conceived ideas of people.  My friend Bry is dead , they said he was fit for work too and yes he was for 3 months then he died.