Posted on 07/23/2009 3:32:56 PM PDT by batter
A baby who died from a suspected salt overdose at a Nottingham hospital has been named by a coroner.
Samuel McIntosh was reportedly born prematurely in March and had been placed on a saline drip at the Queen's Medical Centre. He died on 7 July.
The hospital has apologised for "any shortcomings" in the care of the baby.
Nottinghamshire Coroner Dr Nigel Chapman said Samuel died of an electrolyte imbalance. An inquest is being held on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Sorry to post and run (have an appointment) but would like to hear from 'medical' FReepers. Was this the hospital's fault (negligence etc) or is the death more likely due from the complications of a premature infant?
For FR Legal Eagles: if the hospital is negligent/liable, I assume there is no recourse if it is part of the National Health Service or would sovereign immunity not apply in this situation?
Also, The BBC says the police declined to investigate the matter.
Tragic.
Not to go OT, but this headline made me think of the thousands of unborn babies killed by saline abortions.
The Sheriff refused to investigate?
But hey, it’s free.
An HMO doctor can be sued for negligent medical treatment, just as he or she would be if the care was not provided by an HMO. If the doctor is an employee of the HMO, you may sue the HMO for the actions of the doctor under the legal concept of “vicarious liability.” “Vicarious liability” in the medical setting means that the negligent doctor was acting as the agent of the HMO and therefore the HMO can be held responsible for the doctor’s carelessness. Claims directly against the HMO for medical malpractice are difficult, as the HMO has to be shown to have been practicing medicine; however, direct claims against the HMO for negligent selection, retention and/or supervision of its healthcare providers are possible. For example, if an HMO fails to terminate a physician with a record of substance abuse that has resulted in injuries to patients, it may be liable for negligently keeping that doctor on its staff.
I don't think so. If a doctor makes an error he/she can be removed. The doctor is basically a government employee and is exempt. The government might, and I emphasize might, pay a settlement to the patient. I can assure you it won't be $50million like it would be here.
The term would most likely be "pay a claim" and not "lawsuit".
If it were, I would say it was worth every penny. I don't know how much money is siphoned off the British economy to pay for it, but it is way too much to pay for travesties like this.
BTW I originally spelled syphon, but the spellcheck flagged it. The company I work for uses the syphon spelling. Does anyone know if it is properly spelled with a 'y' in UK and Canada?
Syphon is a legitimate variant spelling here in the U.S.
FR's spell check is kind of quirky. Have you noticed that it doesn't accept Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.