Family of disabled child sue NHS for 'wrongful birth'

[chamoiscreased]

here

Fio, I'm sorry it did not work out for you. There is a massive amount of guilt in anyone going down the litigation process that there are countless others that are entitled, but for whatever reason, there is no payout.

I think for the general public without insight, I can kind of understand the thought process of everyone needing to be equal, and the idea that sueing is greedy. But really, it doesn't take that much serious thought to have compassion for those with this precise dilemma, surely?

agreed. sounds like they just found a way to fund his future and the new house they say they need to meet his needs.

At the end of the day, she is putting her child first by fighting for any money she can get.

it does worry me though that it seems unfair when so many other families with special needs children make the best life they can for their children without this kind of financial support, and the money has to come from somewhere - how will the trust afford it without cutting services elsewhere?

THE TRUST DOESN'T PAY THE COMPENSATION, THE NHS HAS ITS OWN INSURANCE SCHEME, WHICH THE TRUST WILL PAY INTO FOR COVERAGE.

It isn't an insurance scheme - it is just a separate NHS budget. It's taxpayer's/NHS money, not an insurance company's.

But what difference does it make where the money comes from? Should no one ever sue the NHS because it means you're diverting funds from elsewhere? It's got be held accountable financially. A slap on the risk is not enough

No but some peopel seem to think that the NHS pays £20 a month to Norwich Union or something...

Er no I mentioned insurance schemes (do apologise if the terminology was wrong) to make the point that another child isn't going to have their treatment halted because the NHS was paying out on a cock up,

As spicemonster says I'm not sure why it matters so much anyway. It's only ever disabled people that seem to be told there's not enough to go round and they shouldn't be asking for something they're legally entitled to because then someone else will miss out. Using my earlier example no-one suggests that a child should wait a week to have a broken arm fixed because lots of children have broken arms already this week and they can't afford another one.

ok so technically it's self-insurance, but principle is the same - that the trusts pay whatever per year to NHSLA rather than Norwich Union. Anyway = the point I wanted to make is that if you sue a trust, the compensation and costs don't get paid directly by that very trust.

slap on the risk?! Dear me, slap on the wrist obviously. I rely too much on my computer proofreading for me!

We're currently suing the NHS for cocking up dd's birth resulting in her Cerebral Palsy. We've been told that IF.. we get to the end of the battle (expected to take 8-10 years) then dd could be awarded millions. But this is for her WHOLE life. At best she will able to work part-time - the payout represents loss of earnings and therefore pension throughout a life-time, as well as all of the extra care and equipment she needs. No-one would take on suing the NHS lightly, the process is long and arduous and perhaps quite rightly should be, it is a serious business.

My point is that the process doesn't need to be so contentious, nor take 8 - 10 years (as in the instance of HangingBelly).

Children who are disabled because of NHS negligence or fault or least where there are allegations of such, should be fast tracked imo.

But more to the point, if families are being supported, respite care, alterations to the home, nursing care, then it seems to me the only claims will be for financial loss.

Most of the claims though are filed because the family is not getting the requisite home help, and seems to me that it's such a false economy for the NHS not to provide it.

ild - claims cannot be "fast tracked". Until the child is of an age where everyone involved has a very good idea of the child's needs right into adulthood, then a claim cannot be finalised. Some cases are clearer than others, and some children's needs do not come apparent until later into childhood.

In conclusion, sweeping statements cannot be mmade. Each case is unique, and no two cases are settled in the same way.

Defence lawyers will not pay out a penny more than they can get away with. So each case takes years, while lawyers obtain the facts, wait for the child to develop, and argue over costs.

It is a lengthy arduous process.

I'm afraid ilovemydog, your posts give me the impression that your thoughts on the system are just that, your musings. With no facts or insight to back them up. There are a lot of parents here who are going through the system. I hope you have learned something about this horrible nightmare world of negligence.

Ilove I suppose the concern there would be that if being awarded all of it stopped you needing to pursue the NHS, those with children not disabled through NHS error would be left behind.

Somewhere along the line there is always a big worry like that

I had a disabled sister whose birth was the fault of the medical profession and went through the process.

It shouldn't be a lengthy process is my only point.

Thanks Two -- will leave your thread. I've been through it, and didn't know it was members only.

isn't it terrible how long it takes(9 years and counting here) if you are l"lucky" enogh to have a case and win, years have gone by by then.

i am told there are likely to be some 'no fault' compensation schemes through some pcts fairly soon as it is felt that the costs of fighting complicated legal suits may actually cost more in the long run than just paying out in cases of 'damage' whether culpable or otherwise. i know it has been suggested in the past, but it seems likelier now, and i think they are even trialling it soon in the pct where dd2 was born.

she won't be eligible as our investigation is already running, but we aren't expecting to be awarded compensation in any case. we would just like to know how she ended up with brain damage from hypoxia at birth. we may not ever know, but at least we will have tried our best to find out.

I have just googled NHS Director jobs. Here is a link: www.executivesontheweb.com/nhs-director-jobs
I'm sorry, but if they have the money to spend hundreds of pounds a DAY on a director's/senior manager's job, then they can divert some of that money for caring for those with severe disabilities.

Er, it's not my thread.

but that only happens once you have "won"

Er, you're acting as if it's your thread.

The comment that you hoped I learned something and that I was just musing was rather offensive. You want my credentials?

If a system existed whereby cases could be heard quickly and at least the first hurdle as far as establishing negligence or even a no fault system, then assessing damages obviously would need to be done in stages, with interim payments made at regular intervals as it exists now.

As far as the people in this article, all of the money will obviously go towards the child and his physical needs. So, if the case hadn't been pursued, they wouldn't be able to take care of him adequately. So, my point is that in an ideal world, it shouldn't have to get to this stage as there would be preventative measures, including an assessment at an early stage thereby hopefully eradicating the reasons to take it to court.