Case So Bad, Jury Excused From Service...
News0 min ago
Ebola Nurse
I always figured that she was a bit short on the truth when she travelled back to LHR but I am surprised that she is still being investigated about it. Do you think that she has suffered enough?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 237SJ. 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.
Read Sqad's post in the 'Related Questions' below.
I agree 100% , she had come back from prolonged close contact with Ebola cases in Sierra Leone yet she was not put into quarantine !! Why not?
A stay in quarantine would have prevented any chance of spreading the disease and made sure she got treatment at the very first sign of symptoms.Which would have made her treatment a lot faster and lessened the complications.
I agree 100% , she had come back from prolonged close contact with Ebola cases in Sierra Leone yet she was not put into quarantine !! Why not?
A stay in quarantine would have prevented any chance of spreading the disease and made sure she got treatment at the very first sign of symptoms.Which would have made her treatment a lot faster and lessened the complications.
Incompetents circling the wagons, as usual.
The news told us of bleeding eyes and generally turning to liquid in the blink of an eye but a person working with infected people was allowed to stravaig about the place like a modern day Typhoid Mary, no quarantine period.
Those in charge of such things should be identified and made to resign, but they won't.
The news told us of bleeding eyes and generally turning to liquid in the blink of an eye but a person working with infected people was allowed to stravaig about the place like a modern day Typhoid Mary, no quarantine period.
Those in charge of such things should be identified and made to resign, but they won't.
i would guess that, even if the charges are found to be proved, any punishment meted out to a nurse who is only in this situation because she was saving lives, and given her high public profile, would be seen as utterly draconian.
That's not to say that punishment is not valid - but public perception is everything in these issues, and the image damage caused by seeming to be high-handed and officious will be far greater than any good that may come of the punishment.
For that reason, I think that once all the boxes are ticked, this will be quietly forgotten.
That's not to say that punishment is not valid - but public perception is everything in these issues, and the image damage caused by seeming to be high-handed and officious will be far greater than any good that may come of the punishment.
For that reason, I think that once all the boxes are ticked, this will be quietly forgotten.
Vulcan - //What am I missing here? She is being accused of concealing her temperature but Public health England screening staff took her temperature, so how was it concealed? //
The lady is accused of not advising that she had taken Paracetamol, which could have affected the reading by lowering her temperature.
The lady is accused of not advising that she had taken Paracetamol, which could have affected the reading by lowering her temperature.
///The NMC has now released the full charges, which allege Ms Cafferkey did not tell Public Health England screening staff who took her temperature at the airport that she had recently taken paracetamol.
She is also said to have left the area without reporting her true temperature.///
Doesn't come across as being the correct actions of a Medical Professional to me.
jno - tush - NMC run by subs from the nurses themselves
AND you cant refuse to answer questions as it is not a criminal thingey so the fifth amendment isnt open to you ( or English equiv )
and the NMC sole criteria ( they will give out some *** that they have to investigate every complaint - and in the past a piece in the News of the Screws has been taken as a complaint ) is whether that nurse's standard of practice could be impaired
and yes it is OK that this length of time is taken ( Hiem v GMC I think ) coz it is in the public interest you see. Anything less than two years is deffo OK and many cases more than two years. World record ten I think ( Matta I think)
and yes very early on
people noticed that she had got very unwell ( from "well" on entry at London) to being unwell far too quickly
[ like you know she knew she was unwell when she flew ]
and that paed who knew he 'had it' flew to ?Liberia and took it with him and caused a few thousand avoidable deaths - he died.
and yes the charges were mistakenly uploaded to the NMC site yesterday
but there is no purchase for the defence in that
O and jno is partially right
the NMC ran itself so badly - that it was £60m in deficit and applied to the govt for 'relief' and got it
but now the minister rings up ( or a flunky ) and it is now all - "yes minister and no minister yes today sir"
and none of this "we are an independent quasi legal regulator what on earth are you doing interfering ?"
[ yeah I seem to know an awful lot about the finances of the NMC, innit ?]
AND you cant refuse to answer questions as it is not a criminal thingey so the fifth amendment isnt open to you ( or English equiv )
and the NMC sole criteria ( they will give out some *** that they have to investigate every complaint - and in the past a piece in the News of the Screws has been taken as a complaint ) is whether that nurse's standard of practice could be impaired
and yes it is OK that this length of time is taken ( Hiem v GMC I think ) coz it is in the public interest you see. Anything less than two years is deffo OK and many cases more than two years. World record ten I think ( Matta I think)
and yes very early on
people noticed that she had got very unwell ( from "well" on entry at London) to being unwell far too quickly
[ like you know she knew she was unwell when she flew ]
and that paed who knew he 'had it' flew to ?Liberia and took it with him and caused a few thousand avoidable deaths - he died.
and yes the charges were mistakenly uploaded to the NMC site yesterday
but there is no purchase for the defence in that
O and jno is partially right
the NMC ran itself so badly - that it was £60m in deficit and applied to the govt for 'relief' and got it
but now the minister rings up ( or a flunky ) and it is now all - "yes minister and no minister yes today sir"
and none of this "we are an independent quasi legal regulator what on earth are you doing interfering ?"
[ yeah I seem to know an awful lot about the finances of the NMC, innit ?]
// That's not to say that punishment is not valid //
yes I am afraid to say - it IS to say that punishment is invalid
this is a practice hearing and whether her (standard of practice ) is impaired.
Punishment is NOT what is required but protection of the public. ( I cant remember wh case that was - Bolton v Law Society I think -it doesnt matter no one looks up the cases I quote )
but good news pinko leftie bleeding heart liberals .....
the NMC is obliged ( Cohen v GMC I think ) to connsder whether the nurse's standard of practice is impaired on the day of HEARING and NOT on the day the alleged lapse ( day of entry to London ) occurred
it is the only case the High Court of London has decided in the accused practitioners favour that has put pressure on the licensing authorities to get off their arrisses and hear cases.
Oh,can you be struck off before the case is heard ? yes that is the Interim Orders Committee - - the cases before Hiem were taking such a bloody long time ( two to ten years ) that the High Court said - yes yes it is ok to put in restrictions on practice BEFORE the case has been heard for public safety. The nurse in question has had one - last year - and has continued with no restrictions on practice
and none of this folks is paid for by the tax payer ....
yes I am afraid to say - it IS to say that punishment is invalid
this is a practice hearing and whether her (standard of practice ) is impaired.
Punishment is NOT what is required but protection of the public. ( I cant remember wh case that was - Bolton v Law Society I think -it doesnt matter no one looks up the cases I quote )
but good news pinko leftie bleeding heart liberals .....
the NMC is obliged ( Cohen v GMC I think ) to connsder whether the nurse's standard of practice is impaired on the day of HEARING and NOT on the day the alleged lapse ( day of entry to London ) occurred
it is the only case the High Court of London has decided in the accused practitioners favour that has put pressure on the licensing authorities to get off their arrisses and hear cases.
Oh,can you be struck off before the case is heard ? yes that is the Interim Orders Committee - - the cases before Hiem were taking such a bloody long time ( two to ten years ) that the High Court said - yes yes it is ok to put in restrictions on practice BEFORE the case has been heard for public safety. The nurse in question has had one - last year - and has continued with no restrictions on practice
and none of this folks is paid for by the tax payer ....
1 to 17 of 17
