-
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!
More Euromadness.
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
- Status
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
ChrisTheSaved
Active Member
Not at all the problem. You also said it was ok to arrest a person who defended himself in his own home so......
The claim was they were never told to feed the baby. That's a lie, they knew they just didn't. No one born thinks you don't have to feed a baby. The UK is trash.
How you came up with the review being the issue I have no idea, perhaps you blind apologetics towards anything reasonable?
""
He said the sad reality was that Mrs Rajatheepan did not get any instruction on how to feed properly or what to do if feeding was unsuccessful.
Read more: Refugees set for payout because midwives didn't tell them to feed baby | Metro News
Twitter: Metro (@MetroUK) | Twitter | Facebook: Metro
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
"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
ChrisTheSaved
Active Member
Still is not the cause and its laughable to claim that every baby that cries should be kept overnight.
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.
ChrisTheSaved
Active Member
Nope, not at all. It literally says they are at fault for not telling them to feed the baby.
So even if shed been examined at the hospital she would have more than likely been found in good health. This all happened after she left the hospital. What kind of parent sits on their butts while their child nearly dies?
what a weird case - here in the US, they make a big deal right after delivery on the question of breast or bottle, talk about both options, and discharge the mother with either a breast pump and a few bottles or some formula and a few bottles. Don't they even ask there?
It does seem odd that these parents didn't know to feed a baby, I don't care if they are from Tamil or whatever, I'm sure they had babies there but it sounds like she and the baby were just kicked out of the hospital with virtually no information. Hope they really did change their procedures, and this lawsuit forced them to.
It does seem odd that these parents didn't know to feed a baby, I don't care if they are from Tamil or whatever, I'm sure they had babies there but it sounds like she and the baby were just kicked out of the hospital with virtually no information. Hope they really did change their procedures, and this lawsuit forced them to.
Still going to be a totally ridiculous award.
Most people would complain and take the baby back for a review. then after the review you are referring to, they'd most likely say thank you very much and go about their business. The feeding thing is the dumbest reason there could possible be for any kind of award.
The mother should be held criminally liable for not returning to the hospital once she knew there were feeding issues.
At best, a very minimal award might be in order, say 100 lbs.
Last edited:
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)?
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.
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.
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?
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.
As Tamils in Sri Lanka, think being African-American the worst days of Jim Crow. Further, as Tamils, they are more than likely Hindu if not Christian.
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.
She was Lazy. I "attempted" to fix my loader Friday. I ran into a problem I did not care to deal with so I took the lazy way out and put it off until today. I still don't want to deal with it so I am going to be lazy and put it off until tomorrow.
A baby is not a piece of Caterpillar equipment. You have to feed them, not "attempt" to feed them.
Baby got to eat. Feed it. Don't attempt to feed it.
- Status