To think the NMC holding a hearing to decide whether Lucy Letby should be struck off the nursing register is ridiculous

[Mylovelycupoftea]

link

I mean, how is this a good use of public money?

Personally I'd rather let the NMC follow their protocol then to give her even a slither of a chance of being able to pursue legal action over unfair treatment due to process not being followed.

Criminals have leveraged things like this in the past to their advantage. Close all loopholes possible in the proper way IMO.

She's already Bern in prison over 3 years , even if her pon was still valid who is going to employ her ?

It would bother you even more if you personally were just the wrong side of someone’s arbitrary idea of “common sense”, I bet.

They need to follow the process.

They’re not going to expensively debate it for a month 🤷🏻‍♀️

They have to have a meeting about it otherwise who would actually make the decision and strike her off? I’m sure it will be very short meeting.

Rules apply to everyone. Unless they vote in a rule that prison sentences of X length or more are immediately struck off, then they are doing the right thing.

I didn't know how long she'd served but it's not the point. Her membership hasn't lapsed for not doing the required hours. She's being struck off for her actions which have shown she is not suitable to be a nurse. It needs formalising. This is an extreme example, yes, but no different in principle to people who have done less extensive damage so won't be locked up for decades or be recognisable but can't have that same responsibility ever again but might be more able to try. It's a serious safeguard with the potential for a minority of dangerous people to slip through the net.

Yes.

It's a formality and in no way funded by the public. Nurses and midwives have to pay £125 per year to practice out of their own wages which goes towards safeguarding the profession.

It maybe be an obvious end conclusion but they have to follow procedures and do the right thing. It's not ridiculous.

I doubt she will be able to appeal her sentences, she might try but she would have to prove they were wrong in law which wouldn't work or wrong in principle which also wouldn't work

There is a process to go through, and that is what is happening here.

And like PP have said, NMC who decide these things is not funded by the public.

I like to look at the NMC and also HCPC websites at the hearings. Hearings are held for a broad range of things. Is very interesting to have a browse.

This case is totally obvious. And if you put all cases on a line from unclear to totally obvious then you have to go a fair way down the line to get to unclear. But who decides where that point is where you stop doing the process and do it on “obviousness”?

You just have to follow a process for this kind of thing. That way there’s total clarity.

Of course she doesn't. Op is saying why is there a hearing, instead of it being automatically happening.

Well obviously there has to be a hearing to strike her off. You can't just say 'oh well we struck her off automatically' - where are the records of it then? What date did it happen? Who made the decision?

The people in the hearing would be getting paid whether they were sitting staring at a computer or in a circle discussing the case. It's just geography.

Yes I enjoyed that too, @Itscatsallthewaydown

Harold Shipman was struck off the medical register by the GMC 11 days after his conviction, no hearing was required. I see no reason why a unilateral decision could not be similarly taken in Leytby's case. Sure members' subs could be better spent on lobbying for better pay, conditions etc etc.

Better to follow the procedures than to risk a frivolous lawsuit.

Better pay and conditions? The NMC aren’t the slightest bit interested in that.

She agreed to it back in November so I don't know why it's not already done

You'd think they could have a rule that if you are found guilty of murdering your patients you are automatically struck off

Exactly

Sickening, though, to see she's trying to appeal again against the conviction ... sometimes things can be very difficult for those of us who oppose the death sentence in all circumstances

Why bother having criminal trails either - we could just rely on common sense? Which really isn't all that common.

We have due process so that everyone is treated fairly, equitably, and in accordance with a transparent process. It doesn't matter what "common sense" says. Whilst it is unlikely, it is possible that the "common sense" and "logic" that led to her conviction could just be wrong. It's happened in other cases where "common sense" and "logic" says that someone is guilty. But if by some happenchance she was cleared in the future, then she would have the right to have the decision to strike her off reviewed and changed.

It's what happens in a civilised society.

Because that was the GMC, not the NMC, and because he waived his right the full process. So totally different bodies, totally different rules, totally different situation.

My point is moreso that when someone is convicted (not alleged or charged but actually convicted) of a serious crime, it's not uncommon for them to be struck off or have awards / achievements unilaterally rescinded. Think Lester Piggott losing his OBE when he went to jail for tax fraud, etc. So the charade of a hearing seems like a waste of members' subs to me. I mean it's not like Letby's going to sue is it? She can't even lodge an appeal against her murder convictions.

Does a conviction like that not get you struck off automatically? I don't know anything about these procedures, can someone explain? I would expect an automatic strike off but I'd also expect there to be some sort of process around it.

I mean it's not like Letby's going to sue is it? She can't even lodge an appeal against her murder convictions

But that's exactly what she's trying to do, @CantDealwithChristmas - and that's after losing one part of the process already:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68233226