ChatterBank3 mins ago
How Can This Incident Carry Such A Lenient Sentence?
30 Answers
he family of the poor guy who died must be jumping up and down with anger after watching this video - I know I would be.
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -englan d-birmi ngham-3 1429726
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pocket_Rocket. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The (ex) paramedic seems to have been in the wrong job. Presumably he was fully trained, and at the very least could have got the help from colleagues. Yet in an emergency he was unable to act. Not mentally capable of it, even though one would hope most bystanders would have been savvy enough to do more. Very sad for the family/deceased.
If you have ever been to oone of these things it is difficult not to shout - " hold it it wasnt like that, I was there !"
Narty paramedic did not CAUSE the death - the patient was unattended for 30s and so it is not possible to say BUT FOR the dereliction of duty - this fella would have been alive
so in some ways he was unlucky
Here is another case - quite famous - where the parents blamed the doctors but the narty hospital had to admit in the end, it hadnt disclosed a report saying the Hospital was at fault - for a year during the investigation.
http:// www.ncb i.nlm.n ih.gov/ pmc/art icles/P MC11146 54/
Narty paramedic did not CAUSE the death - the patient was unattended for 30s and so it is not possible to say BUT FOR the dereliction of duty - this fella would have been alive
so in some ways he was unlucky
Here is another case - quite famous - where the parents blamed the doctors but the narty hospital had to admit in the end, it hadnt disclosed a report saying the Hospital was at fault - for a year during the investigation.
http://
\\\\Why is the sentence 'about right' though Sqad?\\\
Because..........taking the description of the events and considering the prognosis even with instant attention, defibrillation if diagnosed and treated, the outcome would have probably been the same.
Defibrillation looks good on TV but the facts are that in an acute heart attack, the results of "shocking " the patient is less than 10 % in total., better in A&E but much worse in "outside surroundings.
Because..........taking the description of the events and considering the prognosis even with instant attention, defibrillation if diagnosed and treated, the outcome would have probably been the same.
Defibrillation looks good on TV but the facts are that in an acute heart attack, the results of "shocking " the patient is less than 10 % in total., better in A&E but much worse in "outside surroundings.
well thx for your input sqad !
[ sorry - little in-joke that I enjoy anyway ]
as ever we dont know all the facts
this paper
https:/ /www.re sus.org .uk/pag es/OHCA _consen sus_pap er.pdf
confirms that in out-of-hospital-arrest in 28 000 cases
the survival rate was 8.6%
[ sorry - little in-joke that I enjoy anyway ]
as ever we dont know all the facts
this paper
https:/
confirms that in out-of-hospital-arrest in 28 000 cases
the survival rate was 8.6%
this gentleman was outside a hospital , as the paramedic obviously had no intention of treating the man, did no one think of alerting hospital staff, re cardiac arrest, if you are going to have one, your best chance of survival is inside a hospital , or even ' just outside'' no one will know if this gentleman could have been resuscitated successfully, as he was never given the chance,,,,,,
eight months because they cant be sure he did anything
( it is not shown that his lack of action caused the death leaving the side of the very thorny question of do bystanders HAVE TO intervene.
they do in French law under the Code penal - assistance a personne en danger - but there is no counter part in English law
( it is not shown that his lack of action caused the death leaving the side of the very thorny question of do bystanders HAVE TO intervene.
they do in French law under the Code penal - assistance a personne en danger - but there is no counter part in English law
Thanks PP.
Maybe I'm not putting my point across very well.
For example, you say "eight months because they cant be sure he did anything". But they CAN be sure he did NOTHING.
And "it is not shown that his lack of action caused the death". That is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to illustrate. The fact is the paramedic was criminal in his dereliction of duty, which must have seriously impacted any chance of survival.
Maybe I'm not putting my point across very well.
For example, you say "eight months because they cant be sure he did anything". But they CAN be sure he did NOTHING.
And "it is not shown that his lack of action caused the death". That is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to illustrate. The fact is the paramedic was criminal in his dereliction of duty, which must have seriously impacted any chance of survival.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.