Leslie Ash got £5m compensation, not £500,000!

[mumemma]

Looks like the papers got it wrong yesterday.....

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7192605.stm

But if an insurance company pays out, this isn't money lost to patient care is it? f it is, then it's outrageous and she should donate some of it back.

she isn't permanently affected is she? there are so many people struggling with care costs £5 million sounds excessive to me. to the point of being unreasonable.

i would say it was excessive for anybody who is not permanently affected, just seems worse because Lesley Ash is not in need of the money.

Yes she is permanently affected. She nearly died and cannot walk unaided. She's been disabled by it. I agree with lulumama - if she was a nonentity, people would be pleased for her.

There's no insurance company. The NHS Litigation Authority handles claims for medical negligence. Every hospital trust pays a sum to the authority and the authority pays claimants. IIRC about a quarter of the total budget for legal cases against the NHS goes in costs - i.e. court fees, legal expenses, etc. etc. etc.

By far the most common cases are those where a baby has been left brain-damaged due to a badly handled labour. These cases are very expensive because the children concerned need life-long care. The size of payouts is increasing because life expectancy for severely disabled children is improving.

It's a bit different if you sue a GP - they have their own insurance.

I imagine it was quite difficult for Lesley Ash to bring the claim. If the NHS had taken it all the way to a full hearing in the civil courts, all sorts of very personal details might have become public. And because she's a celeb, people would have been interested.

if she was a nonentity she wouldn't have got 5 million.

ruty - my sisters friend got £2.6 million payout and she aint no celeb. Her baby was left brain damaged due to a badly handled birth as edam mentioned above.

for the reasons edam mentioned I mean.

I'm glad she did Shaneice. However those kinds of payouts are rare, and Ash got double that. For the experience she had, getting a superbug, pay outs like that are exceedingly rare, if non existent.

Shaniece sorry!

My DH's grandad died because he contracted MRSA in hospital, bet no-one get anywhere with that one.

I have 2 disabled kids, I am pretty sure that the repeated seriods injections I was given when pregnant with DS1 caused his CP, and I can't be sure about Dd1. But again, could we sued, would we sue?

legal fees are so exorbitant only the rich can sue in cases lik Ash's.

i didn't realise she was permanently affected. she should get compensation for that. it still seems like a lot to me.

ruty that is not true. dd gets legal aid.

According to her book she is permanently disabled ( only read book in Asda!) I wouldn't wish this on anyone, and no amount of money really compensates in these cases does it. At least sme shouldn't feel the need to write a book (generous description) again now- phew

'( only read book in Asda!) '

yeah, right!

Perhaps she is entitled to some compensation, but I'd personally prefer that the money was put towards getting rid of the infections.

Agree with Lulu, we should feel compassion for someone who has become disabled - besides SHE didn't set the amount did she? It was awarded to her.

Do now someone who had a less but comparable amount awarded, again becuase of a botched vaccination. Cost of future care etc was very much taken into account when it was calculated, as was dad's loss of earnings as her sole carer (mum died from different complications)

2shoes I think almost all claims on behalf of children will qualify for medical negligence legal aid.

I don't think the amoun tawarded is a reflection on her morally as a person. i do think it's a lot of money for a public health service to be giving in compensation. she's not the only one - it's the system we have at the moment.

I dont get it.
Is she disabled from contracting a hospital bug, or from breaking her back having sex?

Message withdrawn

I don't think it's nasty to discuss whether such big compensation claims should be granted. I don't think the NHS can withstand them.

A member of my family was possibly seriously affected due to administrative negligence but we didn;t pursue it because she was a lifelong supporter of the NHS and we knew she would hate it. We've had wonderful service from the NHS otherwise.

A lot of hospital acquired infections are caused by poor hand washing (eg surgeons not using hibiscrub or washing hands properly and going from patient to patient)and I'm not sure how investing money would solve this. It's to do with attitudes, not ignorance. We have lots of hygiene info in my hospital with pictures of how to wash hands correctly but that doesn't cost much. I have seen a machine (in Ireland as it happens) which has some kind of ultra violet light. You put alcogel on your hands then put your hands under the machine (looks a bit like a hand dryer) and it shows up any areas that are not clean. They also had very strict rules and every visitor had to wash their hands again before entering the ward and had to wear an apron (which had to be discarded on leaving). Now all this probably does cost money and it's great if it stops visitors from passing on bugs. What it doesn't change however (necessarily), is the practices of the clinical staff.

I agree it is a lot of money for the NHS and I wonder will it open the floodgates now for others to claim.

However (from what I have read somewhere) Leslie Ash was in hospital with relatively minor injuries and got infected through an infected needle. Before this she was a healthy and active mother and a successful actress. She almost died from the MRSA. Her sons were 7 and 11 at the time and were warned that she might die. She is now left disabled.

If this does nothing but wake the gov/NHS management up to the fact that cutting back on cleaning and cleaning contracts to save money is downright dumb then it might be a good thing. Gordon Brown promised a 'deep clean' of all hospitals apparently. Wouldn't have been necessary if spending on hygiene was not squeezed and squeezed and squeezed.