Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not really. If you had taken the trouble to look into this case more deeply you would have learned that the hospital failed to review the infant on discharge - standard procedure - which is a clear case of negligence
How can one 'read more' when you're re-linking the article in the OP? That's not 'reading more', it's just repetition. If you did read more, you wouldn't have to ask the question about where I got the failure to review from:
"If the baby, who had been crying continuously, had been reviewed when Mrs Rajatheepan was collected from the hospital, mother and child would have been kept in overnight, the judge said."
Hospital at fault for baby's brain damage, High Court rules
Point missed again. Let me spell it out: the health of the infant was not reviewed before discharge from hospital. Nothing to do with keeping him in overnight, it's about health professionals not spotting the blatantly obvious.
She was released, then later they did a follow up visit at home.
Judge Martin McKenna said medics ‘effectively ignored’ Nilujan’s parents when they visited the family at home after the birth. Nilujan was pale and lethargic, having not been fed for more than 15 hours.
Not really. If you had taken the trouble to look into this case more deeply you would have learned that the hospital failed to review the infant on discharge - standard procedure - which is a clear case of negligence
I see what you are pointing to here, but I'm missing the point (of the article) I guess. What exactly was the condition they missed (the reason the child couldn't feed)?Not really. If you had taken the trouble to look into this case more deeply you would have learned that the hospital failed to review the infant on discharge - standard procedure - which is a clear case of negligence
Great. So this couple, fleeing war and ethnic cleansing from the Columbo government, have a disabled son thanks to the hospital's failings, and you guys want to beat up on them? Not exactly a pro-life or Christian position, is it?
What would have happened had they stayed in Sri Lanka?
Someone has to pay for the kid to be cared for at home. The family haven't got the money without the award of damages, so the alternative would be to have the boy taken into care...again at taxpayers' expense...so the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab either which way. And, presumably, your insurance-based system has a similar effect: the insurers pay out to fund the care costs and pass on the cost of this in increased premiums to fund that.Isn't the normal NHS healthcare enough? Now the taxpayers have the added bill for the settlement in addition to the ongoing medical care. What would have happened had they stayed in Sri Lanka? Yes, I feel sad for them, but by just being in Britain they have won the lottery and now this affront to the people that gave them safe haven. Keep working my friend, the government needs your hard earned cash to dole out to others.
The full judgment is here: Rajatheepan v Barking, Havering And Redbridge NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 716 (QB) (13 April 2018). It makes rather more coherent reading than the sensationalist tabloid headline take on it
Points to note:
1. The mother did attempt to breastfeed her baby (so, not 'too lazy ', Reynolds).
2. The hospital failed to assess/ review on discharge, which was premature in any event.
3. Not only that, they rudely ignored the family's concerns on more than one occasion.
Baby got to eat. Feed it. Don't attempt to feed it.Great. So this couple, fleeing war and ethnic cleansing from the Columbo government, have a disabled son thanks to the hospital's failings, and you guys want to beat up on them? Not exactly a pro-life or Christian position, is it?