Meningitis toddler 'sent home with a plaster after doctor said she only had a splinter'

Usual story about a case of misdiagnosis which had near fatal consequences. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, but it's a lot easier to be a journalist than be a doctor- and journalists do not seem to be accountable for their own actions.



Errr. Anatomy, pathology, physiology, that sort of thing. One thing's for sure, they should be taught clairvoyance so they can see into the future and thus never have to make a mistake ever ever.



What a stupid c**t. If you're so great and good why don't you try being a doctor?

I can't believe that there's so many stupid people in the world. I am thankful that we are not given referenda on the things that these people demand referenda for otherwise society would be well and truly screwed!

When I read the story, this certainly seemed to be one of the more inexcusable mistakes, since (if the report is correct) the illness showed itself up at that stage as just a pinprick-like mark.

Speaking of which I got a leaflet through the letterbox the other day practically begging the residents of Lewisham to have their children vaccinated with the MMR. That's a mistake the Mail et al don't seem to feel like owning up to...

Me:

Sorry, that was meant to be "excusable" not "inexcusable." Note to self: must not try to post after midnight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -much.html



Going by the growing red arrows apparently public sector health professionals do actually HATE the elderly. Hatred! pure undilluted hate for those wrinkly grey haired tossers! I know for a fact that is now part of a nurses job description to kick away walking sticks, urinate in Ovaltine and hide the Worthers Originals!

I feel that's a horrible article. I know the nurses and doctors at my local NHS hospital love the elderly and when my gran had her hips replaced there was no hatred. That article has left me quite mad.

And I don't understand why people are so bitter when it comes to the NHS. I've never had any problems so I can't sympathise with those people.

Agreed. Lets face it, the Mail and its ilk will not be satisified until the NHS is fully privatised. This kind of alarmist trash really upsets me too. Much of my family (including myself for several years) work within the NHS and do so because they have a commitment to better the treatement and care of EVERYONE who comes through those doors.

Most of the criticism I hear is based, not on personal first-hand testimony, but the regurgatation of sensationalist 'filthy ward' drivel like this! The NHS is admired the world over, and rightly so. Yes, in very rare cases bad practice can occur, and when it does it should be fully investigated and solutions sought. The answer however will not be found in privatisation!

I was talking to someone the other day about healthcare. And apprently Canada and the UK have a better healthcare system than the U.S. which is private.

I have an aunt who's a surgery nurse and she gets mad at all the negative articles in the mail about the NHS too.

I feel quite sorry for them really. They must get a lot of hassle from patients who believe every word the DM says about them.

When you make any business profit-driven it's ongoing goal will be to cut costs and increase income.

In the case of healthcare that could literally mean life or death for those who can't afford it, or are deemed "not a good investment".

Private ownership may be able to bring in more money and resources, but it'll also bring in more conditions of treatment.

There is a good bit about MRSA and 'filthy hospital' scares in Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. The jist is that the information journalists use to back up their scare stories can often be utterly fabricated. Not directly of course but they pay for information they know is dodgy from labs they know are dodgy.

But in many ways that already exists due to the 'postcode lottery' (i realise thats a Tabloid phrase, but it is quite an acurate one). Differnt hospitals are better than others. Bradfords is very good however Rotheram, just a few miles down the rd is utterly shit, as is that one reported by the newspapers yesterday. Govenment meddling with targets and stuff to please the fickle electorate is the main cause for the rise in hospital infections. Reduced waiting times have resulted in more folk being dead, not a very good exchange really.

That, and a minority of doctors who just couldn't give a fuck are making the NHS very sick indeed

Private sector involvement is a must, by taking minor cases and treating those who can afford it, the private sector will reduce the strain on the NHS and allow it to deal with the most serious cases and those who cannot afford private care. It will not create a two tier system because the revitalised NHS, with less demand, will be almost as good as private in the end.

24h to save the NHS
education, education, education

Those were two of the reasons i voted for Labour in 1997. They let me down BIG TIME
(and caused me to start reading the mail )

Thats how much of a failure they have been on these two subjects in my eyes

Sorry, rant over

I absolutely disagree with private healthcare (and education, for that matter) on reason of principle. Likewise, I disagree with a "postcode lottery", and I think this personally is due to the genius idea that what the NHS needed was market forces, thus creating competing trusts which results in the hodge-podge we have now. Bloody silly move by all accounts.

However, it's not all bad news, and in fact the NHS is getting better and better. It's finally reaping the benefit of substantial investment, MRSA is significantly down and cleanliness is up - but will you find it in the papers? Of course you won't.

I don't see what principle there can be in stopping people who are ill from getting better.

Okay so there is 'Why should those with money get better treatment than those without money?' but I don't see who you're helping by dragging one person down.

Some targets are a good thing in my opinion. Saying that everyone in A&E gets seen by a nurse / doctor within 4 hours or whatever is a good thing, IMO, where the problems start are the micro-management of things

The principle is that being rich should not qualify you to a better level of care than someone else, simply because you have more money than them. It's an absolutely arbitrary measure of worth, utterly ridiculous, and the only reason it seems acceptable is because society has decided that this arbitrary measure is a good one to have. It would be exactly the same as saying "only people with a high IQ in this hospital, please" or "only brown-haired chaps educated here".

In any case, it wouldn't be stopping ill people from getting better in opposing private healthcare, because the NHS would always be available.