Nick is not doing a daily round up this time but I think focusing on themes that emerge or a single aspect. The most recent one was to skewer the stupid defence that evidence based medicine is not WORIADS. I think he may have his hands on a downloadable version of the bundle, plenty of reading fun.
It's a bold strategy and it may not be held by the judge to meet the Grainger criteria. The law can be an ass and she might see that as a bridge too far. But it's not the defence I would have chosen. So mockable.
They could have gone with the standard - just following procedure, well there was differing opinions about the care pathway, we really didn't know what Dr Hall was doing, Amroliwala was a rogue and nothing to do with us, etc.
I would describe this defence as a cross breed of:
- the other dude did it; and
- yeah, we treat everybody that badly because we're ignorant.
nb - 'Stupid is natural and can be cured. Ignorant is acquired and is hard to shift'. My granny's saying.