News2 mins ago
Pauline Cafferkey Ebola Victim Faces Hearing
99 Answers
How serious do you find this? Should she be struck off by the NMC?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. 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.
-- answer removed --
ag,
Plenty! As is usual in these cases, the public believe that NHS staff go there willy-nilly, fully paid. Not so. When they wanted volunteers for humintarian duties following the earthquake in Haiti, all those willing to go were told that they would have to use their annual leave to do so.
Strangely, nobody went!
Plenty! As is usual in these cases, the public believe that NHS staff go there willy-nilly, fully paid. Not so. When they wanted volunteers for humintarian duties following the earthquake in Haiti, all those willing to go were told that they would have to use their annual leave to do so.
Strangely, nobody went!
yes
acquitted oops
the determination is that she was cleared of misconduct
or that blah blah blah her practice was not impaired and so no action was required / warranted
The hacks are saying "found not guilty" but I think it is the charges were found not proven ( english sense and not scottish sense )
there might also have been a Galbraith half way plea
" if there was no dishonesty ( agree both sides) then why doncha give up and acquit ? "
They were arguing yesterday over whether misconduct - rather than impaired standard of practice ( golly!) needed dishonesty. The defence were saying it does.
People were saying this cost £100k. it all comes out of nrses subs and insurance premiums - hasnt cost the tax payer a penny
Oh a few years ago the NMC were in the red by £60m and asked the govt for it. They paid ...... but there were strings attached hur hur hur
" will you be good nurses now ? " o yes sir very very good....
acquitted oops
the determination is that she was cleared of misconduct
or that blah blah blah her practice was not impaired and so no action was required / warranted
The hacks are saying "found not guilty" but I think it is the charges were found not proven ( english sense and not scottish sense )
there might also have been a Galbraith half way plea
" if there was no dishonesty ( agree both sides) then why doncha give up and acquit ? "
They were arguing yesterday over whether misconduct - rather than impaired standard of practice ( golly!) needed dishonesty. The defence were saying it does.
People were saying this cost £100k. it all comes out of nrses subs and insurance premiums - hasnt cost the tax payer a penny
Oh a few years ago the NMC were in the red by £60m and asked the govt for it. They paid ...... but there were strings attached hur hur hur
" will you be good nurses now ? " o yes sir very very good....
ChillDoubt - //Given that she was high profile from the off, this smacks of a whitewash as no one really wants to see a nurse hounded after such humanitarian deeds.
When the call went out for UK medical staff to help out in Ebola-struck areas, the overwhelming response amongst my NHS colleagues was: *#&£ that! //
I posted earlier, agreeing that this is a high-profile case and will have media attention, but I believe that the decision reached is the right one.
Given the circumstances involved - the chaos surrounding temperature recording, and the fact that Ms Cafferkey may well not have been fully compos mentis when giving her information, due to the effects of her infection, it would be wrong to find that she had deliberately mislead the authorities, and dismiss her on that basis.
No doubt some suit will pop up and assure is that 'Lessons have been learned ...'
When the call went out for UK medical staff to help out in Ebola-struck areas, the overwhelming response amongst my NHS colleagues was: *#&£ that! //
I posted earlier, agreeing that this is a high-profile case and will have media attention, but I believe that the decision reached is the right one.
Given the circumstances involved - the chaos surrounding temperature recording, and the fact that Ms Cafferkey may well not have been fully compos mentis when giving her information, due to the effects of her infection, it would be wrong to find that she had deliberately mislead the authorities, and dismiss her on that basis.
No doubt some suit will pop up and assure is that 'Lessons have been learned ...'
-- answer removed --
AG - //And the moral of this story is?? //
If you are going to mount a campaign to support countries suffering from an outbreak of a fatal infectious disease, make sure you have the support structures in place for nursing staff going to and coming from that country, so they are protected properly, and therefore, so is the rest of the country.
Oh, and if you drop off with your procedures, don't try and pin it on an innocent nurse, put her through months of strain, and then back down because you were wrong to discipline her in the first place.
If you are going to mount a campaign to support countries suffering from an outbreak of a fatal infectious disease, make sure you have the support structures in place for nursing staff going to and coming from that country, so they are protected properly, and therefore, so is the rest of the country.
Oh, and if you drop off with your procedures, don't try and pin it on an innocent nurse, put her through months of strain, and then back down because you were wrong to discipline her in the first place.
Zacs-Master - //The decision was a whitewash to prevent others from being put off volunteering. //
I don't agree.
The decision was, in my view, a climb-down and an acknowledgement that the authorities' procedures were at fault here, and also that the entire business took far too long to investigate.
I don't agree.
The decision was, in my view, a climb-down and an acknowledgement that the authorities' procedures were at fault here, and also that the entire business took far too long to investigate.
Zacs-Master - //I'm glad I live in the real world Andy and not yours, where there's always an excuse for something. //
Aside from your rudeness - I have simply reached a conclusion based on the story as I have heard it - which is all I, or you, or anyone else can do.
If you disagree, that's fine, but that does not entitle you to be superior and sniffy because you think you are right.
Aside from your rudeness - I have simply reached a conclusion based on the story as I have heard it - which is all I, or you, or anyone else can do.
If you disagree, that's fine, but that does not entitle you to be superior and sniffy because you think you are right.
Latest Posts
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Jokes7 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Listener 4842 For Me And You By...
Crosswords23 mins ago
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.