To feel sorry for this doctor?

[HarryStylesismycrack]

I am not in any way downplaying the death of that beautiful little boy and it is clearly acknowledged there were some failures by the doctor in question however AIBU to feel as though this intervention by the GMC into the independent decision making by the MPTS is concerning? It appears to me that the MPTS took into account many things, not just the outcome (which I completely acknowledge is heartbreaking), the fact that this doctor was working the job of several other medical staff in an unfamiliar environment with significant IT issues with no senior input. It feels like this doctor has been made a bit of a scapegoat for huge systemic failures.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jack-adcock-latest-downs-syndrome-death-doctor-hadiza-babwa-garba-struck-off-general-medical-council-a8177721.html

A different link to a blog by other medical practitioners 54000doctors.org/blogs/an-account-by-concerned-uk-paediatric-consultants-of-the-tragic-events-surrounding-the-gmc-action-against-dr-bawa-garba.html

Hence an independent legal opinion has been sought on this case as to how the doctor has been convicted when clearly there were so many things went wrong in the system. Here is your chance to get involved. Please donate generously if you think they have been wrongly convicted and the justice has been denied. Please click on the link below to donate.
www.crowdjustice.com/case/help-dr-bawa-garba/

Donated. Thanks for the link.

This has not improved patient safety. This has not got ‘justice’ for jack. Shame on GMC.

Why didn’t the defense make more of the mysterious Enalapril dose as a contributing factor? Why not the total lack of staff? Why not that she couldn’t review the X-ray results because she was with another very sick patient? Why wasn’t the unsafe staffing levels a mitigating factor? How the fuck did the consultant get away with totaly throwing her under the bus? Any junior doctors working under him in Ireland must be shitting themselves...

It totally stinks of a show trial.

@jeanvaljean - good post

I can identify a situation less than I month ago when I was in this position. The junior but only Reg on for an emergency department during a night shift with 2 non-ED-trainee juniors helping me and no consultant. People waited hours to be seen, even in the urgent category, I was responsible for 6 resus patients all of whom required immediate treatment or were at risk of dying. One needed a large and potentially dangerous practical procedure. If any one of those people or the people in the rest of the department died it would have been because I failed to treat them. But not because I was sitting having a cup of tea.

The NHS is grossly underfunded and understaffed. It is propped up by a combination of good will and a degree of institutionalisation. There has been a massive system failing in this case and although the child’s care should have been better it is not reasonable to suggest it is the fault of a stretched junior doctor.

@Trulymadlymotherly I think all of us in acute specialties have been in that situation. It’s incredibly stressful.

People also don’t realise how horrendous it feels to go straight from an upsetting resus situation, break bad news to a grieving family and then go straight on to the next case without as much as a cup of tea and 10minutes break. All the while being bleeped incessantly (you have no idea how busy an acute specialty registrar bleep is- having not worn one in a few years I still instinctively look at my belt if I hear a bleeping sound when in the supermarket!). To add to this the fear that if you miss something you could find yourself facing criminal charges or lose your livelihood is not going to help anyone.

I am so shocked reading this. The doctor has been treated awfully. The NHS will be allowed to get worse, so that the private firms can take over.

I have another 3 years of my medical degree left....

Indeed, fluffywuffy, show trial describes what this was very well.

Multiple accounts confirm the enalapril dose was given by the parents an hour prior to the arrest. The child had been clinically improving up to that point.

The supervising/on call consultant it appears was attending a course in Warwick instead of being on-site, which is bizarre in the extreme. He appears to have legged it to work in Ireland with no obvious sanctions.

She was, as indicated in multiple accounts, doing the work of 4 doctors, simultaneously dealing with another critically ill child, and doing lengthy procedures like lumbar punctures at the same time.

The nurse looking after the patient (who has also been struck off for not informing her early enough of the deterioration) was an adult nurse drafted in at the last minute to work on the paeds ward due to staff shortages - he had no prior paediatric nursing training.

It stinks to high heaven but she's a convenient scapegoat.

orangecake, this is a precise example of what to look forward to in your future career if you ever choose to become a specialty registrar in an NHS hospital creaking with underfunding, understaffing, gaping rota gaps, and a never ending swarm of both sick and not so sick patients all demanding your attention.

It is an exercise in spinning a hundred plates all at once whilst trying very hard to get through your career unscathed.

The enalapril - has it been skimmed over because of not wanting to draw attention to the local practice? The hospital managers don't want to stress that it was given by the parents when it shouldn't have been, because local practice was the unusual back to front one of continuing regular meds unless the doctor specifically said not to do so?

People on here have said that many doctors would not expect that to be the system - that they would expect a patient only to be given what they prescribe. But if the enalapril were mentioned in this case, the parents' advocate could just say - local practice means it should have been given, the doctor should have noted that it was to be stopped, the parents did what they were supposed to do.

The doctor hadn't had induction.

She didn't know local practice which is different from anywhere else in the NHS.

How is that her fault?

Well exactly opinionated it was her first day shes not a mind reader and its very poor local practice

@Orangecake123 Finish your medical degree - but if you still want to be a practising clinician, find house jobs and training rotations in NZ or Australia. Then decide if you want to come back to the UK as a consultant or whether you’d rather stay overseas.

if the enalapril was not prescribed it should not have been given -
The doctor was not responsible for something she had not prescribed.

It could be this was just a terrible mistake on the part of 'the person/s' who administered a drug known to damage kidneys and lower blood pressure to a child with acute kidney injury and low blood pressure.

So sad for all concerned- the lessons are clear- there were a number of failings involving a cascade of people involving poor systems and understaffing.

If the parents want to campaign addressing these issues would be a tribute to their beautiful son and make medicine safer for others.

Multiple accounts confirm the enalapril dose was given by the parents an hour prior to the arrest. The child had been clinically improving up to that point.

Whaaaat? Then frankly, the parents have behaved very badly.

You can't blame the patents either I bet no one sat down with explain why he shouldn't have the enalapril and that's probably because it was so understaffed I'm sure they thought they were acting in his best interests.

With them and explained *

@Georgethehamster

• So was that the official practice? How do you know, is there a link or something? That's awful.

I saw this -
"As for the administration of enalapril, the judge left to the jury whether that was or may have been the sole cause of death (on the basis that if it was, no defendant was guilty) and went on: "Likewise, the Crown would have failed to prove the case against any of the defendants if the effect of the enalapril was or may have been so dominant that any acts or omissions of the defendants did not make a significant contribution to Jack dying as and when he did. But if you are still sure that the defendant whose case you are considering was grossly negligent and that her negligence did significantly contribute to Jack's death or timing, then it would be immaterial that the enalapril may also have played a part, even a significant part, in Jack's death or its timing.""

How could a jury possibly judge this?!

@fortybingowings - see the judge's comment above, he's basically telling the jury to ignore?!

I'm sorry, please be clear that I'm not blaming the doctor and I'm not clear who I'm blaming, but the parents cannot and must not be blamed for giving their child his regular meds if it was common practice at that hospital. Bear in mind he was a medically complicated child with previous admissions - they were likely familiar with the LRI 'way' and unless they had been told no would have just carried on as normal, as 'expert parents' of a disabled child. Why wouldn't they? We're being told that is the system that was in place there. A crazy system, but the system none the less.

@Lougle

Of course they can't be blamed, but as more details come out about this case I'm finding it harder to understand why they would so persistently pursue this doctor.

If he was given regular medication that was dangerous in his condition, and this was due to local trust/hospital policy who did not give the doctor an induction about this, than this was directly the fault of management. If you wanted justice for your son than surely this is who you would pursue.

If we know all of this after reading a couple of bits about the case than the parents certainly do - they've been on this case for six years.

"Of course they can't be blamed, but as more details come out about this case I'm finding it harder to understand why they would so persistently pursue this doctor.

If he was given regular medication that was dangerous in his condition, and this was due to local trust/hospital policy who did not give the doctor an induction about this, than this was directly the fault of management. If you wanted justice for your son than surely this is who you would pursue."

^^this

Of course they can't be blamed, but as more details come out about this case I'm finding it harder to understand why they would so persistently pursue this doctor

Exactly. I should have clarified that it's their subsequent behaviour (newspapers tell of drinking champagne at their son's grave on hearing of this doctor's fate) that is bad. They have helped no-one and particularly not other parents of children with complex medical needs and disabilities.

I agree bobo but I wouldn't be surprised if the local trust and management have played down there part its far easier to scapegoat one Doctor then investigate there policies

The trust did do a full review as far as I know and implemented a number of changes following this incident. They continued to employ this doctor and nurse until they were suspended from practice by their regulators. Seems to me like at the time a lot of right steps were taken, only to be undone by the persistence of whoever took this to court in the first instance.

Jack has been failed by the system.

His case is a classic example of failure to implement correct Human Factors.