[News] Baby murder nurse case

[clapham_gull]

It’s a dark and heavy subject. But important to talk about. So thank you for the link.

It’s very misunderstood and people, including medical professionals simply can’t believe a mother who presents as so caring could actually be harming their own child.

My abuse was only stopped when professionals intervened when my mother trying tried to organise an operation in the U.S that would have very likely put me in a wheelchair for life. This was when I was 14. An operation doctors in the U.K. refused to perform.
As a child she fed me on rice and one piece of fish a day, every day for a long time to induce illness and malnourishment. Among lots of other things since I was a newborn. So almost 14 years of it.
To this day, her side of the family refuse to acknowledge it.

Sorry, talking about me again but my point is, it’s an unbelievable condition / disorder because it goes against everything we believe about caring for children. Which is how it goes undetected for so long. Along with the level of manipulation and deception that goes with it.

Anyway. I’ll likely regret sharing that so I’ll end it there. And it’s not my thread.

wow

.. and all respect to you that you came out the other side.

 

[clapham_gull]

To add a bit of colour to what I wrote above.

I saw this nurse deliberately place a patient in a very awkward position. Enough for that patient to scream out when the nurse had gone. Won't go into detail but awkward position is important. Especially in terms of the danger of falling out of bed and within the context of their medical condition.

Soon afterwards the nurse came back. Firstly she had a go at that patient for "getting themselves in that position" and had clearly created an "opportunity" for herself to correct it. Just adding to the "cause and effect" weirdness I had experienced for months.

I didn't imagine this. I witnessed it all first hand, but out of sight. The nurse didn't see me.

I complained and the nurse was moved. I spoke about the other odd experiences I had experienced and witnessed, none of it was challenged. They clearly knew.

Oh and the patient was my mother.

 

[Seagull58]

It’s a dark and heavy subject. But important to talk about. So thank you for the link.

It’s very misunderstood and people, including medical professionals simply can’t believe a mother who presents as so caring could actually be harming their own child.

My abuse was only stopped when professionals intervened when my mother trying tried to organise an operation in the U.S that would have very likely put me in a wheelchair for life. This was when I was 14. An operation doctors in the U.K. refused to perform.
As a child she fed me on rice and one piece of fish a day, every day for a long time to induce illness and malnourishment. Among lots of other things since I was a newborn. So almost 14 years of it.
To this day, her side of the family refuse to acknowledge it.

Sorry, talking about me again but my point is, it’s an unbelievable condition / disorder because it goes against everything we believe about caring for children. Which is how it goes undetected for so long. Along with the level of manipulation and deception that goes with it.

Anyway. I’ll likely regret sharing that so I’ll end it there. And it’s not my thread.

Thanks for sharing your horrific experience. It's a real personal triumph that you managed to get through it.

 

[marlowe]

Some patients of Harold Shipman refused to believe he was capable of killing his victims. His charm and friendly manner, willingness to visit patients at home, were all part of his ‘plan’.

The difference between Shipman's patients who didn't believe he was capable and Letby's friends who didn't think she was capable is that his patients didn't know him as intimately as Letby's friends knew her. Shipman's patients only saw his bedside manner, they didnt see him in his private life, go to school with him, socialise with him or go on holiday with him, so his patients level of disbelief was based on a virtual total lack of knowledge of him, whereas Letby's friends knew her quite intimately or thought they did.

Think of someone you know really well, who you've grown up with, a friend or relative that you know would never in a million years do anything like that. But then put that person in Letby's position with just that circumstantial evidence against them. Would you believe that friend or relative to be guilty? That's what Letby's friends are dealing with. Theyre not casual acquaintances. Some of them have known her since their school days. There's no comparison with Shipman's relationships with his patients.

 

[portlock seagull]

The difference between Shipman's patients who didn't believe he was capable and Letby's friends who didn't think she was capable is that his patients didn't know him as intimately as Letby's friends knew her. Shipman's patients only saw his bedside manner, they didnt see him in his private life, go to school with him, socialise with him or go on holiday with him, so his patients level of disbelief was based on a virtual total lack of knowledge of him, whereas Letby's friends knew her quite intimately or thought they did.

Think of someone you know really well, who you've grown up with, a friend or relative that you know would never in a million years do anything like that. But then put that person in Letby's position with just that circumstantial evidence against them. Would you believe that friend or relative to be guilty? That's what Letby's friends are dealing with. Theyre not casual acquaintances. Some of them have known her since their school days. There's no comparison with Shipman's relationships with his patients.

The spouses, parents and close friends of spies have not known their clandestine activities, so I guess murderers can pull off a similar mask?

 

[chip]

If it's in the DSM V (or whatever number they're up to now), in the eyes of the law it's an 'illness' and can be used as a defence. In a complete contradiction to 'illness' being a 'defence' it wasn't that long ago that being gay could get you sectioned or imprisonment due to the crossover of breaking the law but it being categorised as an illness in the DSM (less than V, probably III).
I will look at those links and will go down the rabbit hole of Roy Meadow as I've never heard of him.

It would be ICD-10 not DSM V, but more or less the same. There's also a more recent trend of saying "features of" BPDDID/ADHD/etc as they are only clusters and it is possible to meet the criteria for many disorders at the same time. I guess that this person fits a very small cluster thankfully.

 

[clapham_gull]

Like many others on here, I have now have extensive experience of the NHS. Like a fly on the documentary maker in a major UK hospital, without the camera.

Deeply political at times and always deeply hierarchical.

Like most of our major institutions, we don't really understand how they operate internally. Particularly the relationship between the "do-ers" (or the "talent") and those who manage them, the bureaucracy.

The hierarchies are complex. You'd think that a senior doctor would always be listened to. Not necessarily if they come up against some else senior protecting their patch.

Younger, ambitious but inexperienced people managing the experienced but institutionalised is a trait of the NHS I often observed. A "leadership course" valued over doing the job for ten years.

And as always in these large institutions, it's sometimes impossible to find out who is charge, let alone responsible.

My experience is that the "public v private" argument is a complete red herring in such institutions. Either would probably work better than the current odd and often toxic mix.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I seem to remember Fred West had brain trauma due to a motorcycle accident.

It could be a factor in these cases, but it is just as likely to be caused by childhood experiences such as her being the subject of difficulties at birth.

Was Rosemary riding pillion?

Facetious comment but there is a point. I suspect the pursuit of a cause in individual cases is a futile one. For example Fred and Rosemary were a match made in Armageddon, but it seems unlikely the basis is they suffered the same head trauma.

The difference between Shipman's patients who didn't believe he was capable and Letby's friends who didn't think she was capable is that his patients didn't know him as intimately as Letby's friends knew her. Shipman's patients only saw his bedside manner, they didnt see him in his private life, go to school with him, socialise with him or go on holiday with him, so his patients level of disbelief was based on a virtual total lack of knowledge of him, whereas Letby's friends knew her quite intimately or thought they did.

Think of someone you know really well, who you've grown up with, a friend or relative that you know would never in a million years do anything like that. But then put that person in Letby's position with just that circumstantial evidence against them. Would you believe that friend or relative to be guilty? That's what Letby's friends are dealing with. Theyre not casual acquaintances. Some of them have known her since their school days. There's no comparison with Shipman's relationships with his patients.

Can we get this clear. Do you 'believe' he's innocent? If not how is she any different from Shipman? Both exploited their position to kill the vulnerable in plain sight. You could argue that Shipman was 'kinder', merely killing the elderly, relatively painlessly, whereas this woman seemed happy to cause pain, damage and maim. I'm not happy with the narrative here.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Like many others on here, I have now have extensive experience of the NHS. Like a fly on the documentary maker in a major UK hospital, without the camera.

Deeply political at times and always deeply hierarchical.

Like most of our major institutions, we don't really understand how they operate internally. Particularly the relationship between the "do-ers" (or the "talent") and those who manage them, the bureaucracy.

The hierarchies are complex. You'd think that a senior doctor would always be listened to. Not necessarily if they come up against some else senior protecting their patch.

Younger, ambitious but inexperienced people managing the experienced but institutionalised is a trait of the NHS I often observed. A "leadership course" valued over doing the job for ten years.

And as always in these large institutions, it's sometimes impossible to find out who is charge, let alone responsible.

My experience is that the "public v private" argument is a complete red herring in such institutions. Either would probably work better than the current odd and often toxic mix.

Agree with all that apart from the last sentence. Private medicine does not engage with difficult patients, particularly premature babies. This is relevant only in that the NHS model is not the issue, but, as you correctly note, the management driven process.

Anyway @Weststander nailed it hours ago that, going forward, CCTV and not leaving individuals alone with neonates will nip this in the bud, and proper use of audit data, together with an end to cover-up culture will catch more swiftly any determined miscreants.

 

[clapham_gull]

Agree with all that apart from the last sentence. Private medicine does not engage with difficult patients, particularly premature babies.

That wasn't my point though. I think what a lot of people don't understand about our large public institutions is that "private culture" if not privatisation has been there for years.

That toxic mix that has created some weird "other", especially when the funding actually comes from the taxpayers purse.

That's my point about the public v private argument. It's too simplistic.

Does the NHS have too many managers ? No, it just needs better ones.

 

[clapham_gull]

Instead I lean towards practical solutions. CCTV in wards, always a minimum of two medical personnel with the vulnerable (needs ££££) and a culture where whistle blowers are given immediate respect.

CCTV would have all sorts of privacy issues with patients, it's a difficult solution. It you wanted to use it in case of malpractice where the negative effects weren't known for years, you'd end up having to keep the footage (and all of it) for years. Technology is probably the answer where the drugs administered (and by who) is automatically recorded. If you can track an item being stolen from a supermarket, you can track a medicine being given to a patient in a hospital.

As for two medical personnel that isn't going to happen. I did have some stats around that. I witnessed on a couple of occasions last year, an emergency alarm being rang by a nurse on a ward because there weren't enough nurses on shift... in a high dependency unit.


But Whistle-blowers yes. All our institutions have a major issue with that full stop.

 

[marlowe]

Was Rosemary riding pillion?

Facetious comment but there is a point. I suspect the pursuit of a cause in individual cases is a futile one. For example Fred and Rosemary were a match made in Armageddon, but it seems unlikely the basis is they suffered the same head trauma.

Can we get this clear. Do you 'believe' he's innocent? If not how is she any different from Shipman? Both exploited their position to kill the vulnerable in plain sight. You could argue that Shipman was 'kinder', merely killing the elderly, relatively painlessly, whereas this woman seemed happy to cause pain, damage and maim. I'm not happy with the narrative here.

Of course I don't believe Shipman is innocent!
I wasn't comparing what Shipman did to what Letby did. My comparison was between those people who believed Shipman was not capable of doing what he did, ie his patients and those people who believed Letby was not capable of doing what she did, ie her close friends, many of whom she has known since school. I only made that comparison because another poster said that Shipman's patients didn't believe he was capable of such a thing. The whole point i was making was Shipman's patients didn't know him to the same level of intimacy that Letby's friends know her. It was therefore easier for Shipman to hide certain facets of his character from his patients whereas if you have a life long, or long standing close friend most facets of your character inevitably reveal themselves, or at least clues to them, but that didn't seem to be the case with Letby. There weren't even any clues to those that were closest to her in all those years.

Obviously she wasn't going to reveal to them that she had a penchant for murdering babies, but she might have revealed a slightly twisted or dark sense of humour for instance or her choice of literature or other reading matter, maybe an "innocent" interest in serial killers even. But none of her friends or former friends have come forward offering any insights into her character which might suggest something off kilter.

And of course im not suggesting that if youre interested in dark subject matter then youre likely to have a penchant for putting it into practice, I was the first to defend Colin Stagg when he was enduring trial by the tabloid press simply because he had an interest in Satanism, but rather if one has a penchant for something as abominable as what Letby did then surely its going to be reflected in other facets of your life, your interests, your sense of humour, your relationships with others, your attitudes. But with Letby seemingly not. She was niceness personified according to her friends. I'm sure the tabloids have done plenty of digging with friends and colleagues to see if they can come up with anything they can put their unique spin and interpretation on but even they seem to have drawn a blank and they'll clutch at anything.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The poor babies' families feel cheated that she wasn't there to hear her sentence and for them to see justice served in person.

I don’t think victims feel cheated. As the barrister pointed out, some defendants actually stare at the families, make gestures at them, or pull faces.

 

[Lever]

If me Granny had balls she'd be me Grandad.

Reduced to cliches now? Sorry to hear that. You are slightly more effective when you use your own language....

 

[Lever]

These acts are truly abhorrent.
There can be no justification at any level for such evil.
We may look at a possible troubled past, a moment back in the dark yonder to trigger such acts.
We need, as a civilised nation to look at all possible causes, and try to understand why such a 'normal' human being can do such things.
In her incarceration, we need to help, rather than punish. She'll be troubled no doubt, and needs understanding.
If, in the meantime, someone gets to her with a sharpened toothbrush then power to your elbow.

Mixed messages here resulting in the whole comment being incoherent.

Please clarify your position, I am interested in learning what your considered opinion actually is.....

 

[Lever]

I don’t think victims feel cheated. As the barrister pointed out, some defendants actually stare at the families, make gestures at them, or pull faces.

True... they show the same contempt for human sensibility in the judgement as they did in the dreadful acts they perpetrated. No miraculous emotional transition....

 

[The Clamp]

Inside Low Newton: the high security prison that will house Lucy Letby

Durham facility is regarded as safe by inspectors and houses Joanna Dennehy, who also received a whole life order

www.theguardian.com

 

[Iggle Piggle]

As for two medical personnel that isn't going to happen. I did have some stats around that. I witnessed on a couple of occasions last year, an emergency alarm being rang by a nurse on a ward because there weren't enough nurses on shift... in a high dependency unit.

This is the bit I find a bit staggering. I've worked in places where we have 2 engineers to install a bit of kit (tested by the manufacturer and then the company I worked for using fire resistant cables etc) due to safety reasons. The risk is so low but thems the rules.

Having 1 potentially in charge of 6 premature babies (that was the number when my lad was in, things may have changed), seemingly no lessons learned or improvement process and - in the case - a management culture which sweeps stuff under the carpet shows how broken the whole thing is.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The difference between Shipman's patients who didn't believe he was capable and Letby's friends who didn't think she was capable is that his patients didn't know him as intimately as Letby's friends knew her. Shipman's patients only saw his bedside manner, they didnt see him in his private life, go to school with him, socialise with him or go on holiday with him, so his patients level of disbelief was based on a virtual total lack of knowledge of him, whereas Letby's friends knew her quite intimately or thought they did.

Think of someone you know really well, who you've grown up with, a friend or relative that you know would never in a million years do anything like that. But then put that person in Letby's position with just that circumstantial evidence against them. Would you believe that friend or relative to be guilty? That's what Letby's friends are dealing with. Theyre not casual acquaintances. Some of them have known her since their school days. There's no comparison with Shipman's relationships with his patients.

Do you really know your friends though ? On the documentary they showed pictures of her on nights out. That doesn’t make for a particularly deep friendship and quite frankly you never really know what’s going on in people’s heads no matter how much of a friend you think you are.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That wasn't my point though. I think what a lot of people don't understand about our large public institutions is that "private culture" if not privatisation has been there for years.

That toxic mix that has created some weird "other", especially when the funding actually comes from the taxpayers purse.

That's my point about the public v private argument. It's too simplistic.

Does the NHS have too many managers ? No, it just needs better ones.

It needs fewer managers and a different rubric. Same in academia. I agree this is nothing to do with public/private (and the associated culture war) other than the public sector has tried to run itself like a business, and this hasn't worked. (Well, it could be argued that humans in general are not capable of making large institutions work well for staff and clients; there may be some truth in this).

My experience in academia (and with medical training) has shown me time and time again that the cutting edge people are not the ones making the decisions. Just before I went on holiday I was sent a very long email from an administrator telling me how to check all my teaching timetables and make any corrections, using a rubric invented by administrators (their colour coding, their dropdowns, in an excel spreadsheet with more than thirty columns), for the benefit of administrators, with a deadline a few days after I get back from holiday, and a passive aggressive message that it would not be 'possible' to make any changes requested after that date. Any notion of improving content, responding to student feedback, in other words making things better, forget it. It is all about meeting the needs of the most important people at my university - the administrators and their massive departments of minions. For example, there are three separate groups of administrators involved with creating timetables, creating coursework and exam submission portals, marking portals, and then creation of marksheets. And they f*** up the marks every year, in interesting new ways every year. And this is all 'acceptable'.

Twenty years ago when it all started going tits up, I was asked to go onto a web site and fill out a great big survey by an administer I had never heard of working in a 'department' I had never heard of. I told her to fill it out herself (she had access to all the relevant data). I may have added 'am I here for your benefit or are you here for mine?'. Within hours I received a shirty email from her boss, copied to the principle of my college. This demanded an apology. I was able to write one of those 'your role at (institute) is immeasurable' and 'your contribution is extraordinary' type letters (it was a letter). This was accepted. Within a few years, the administrator, her boss and her department no longer existed. Replaced by a differently named and bigger department. In fact I think it was renamed 'Institute of Education' or something. They have no role in any of my teaching. I think they just write about it for PR purposes.

I can imagine it is just like this, and worse, in the NHS. If you try to create a market model in what is essentially a socialist organization, you have to invent goals, plans and strategies. Where I work we have 'vision 2030'. We are all working to achieve vision 2030. I have no idea what vision 2030 is. Nobody does. In the meantime we have to invent fresh process to show we are working towards vision 2030. I could go on but we would all lose the will to live. Fortunately we have someone on £300K a year in change of all this. I think they are called 'Head of Deliverance'.

Meanwhile an old professor who has repeatedly been reported for encroaching on personal space and, what two different female students described to me as, 'he seems to have a problem with eye level' and 'he was constantly staring at my chest' has been advised to not be alone with female students (no other action taken other than his promotion to positions of ever increasing power and influence). When I criticized what amounted to scientific illiteracy bordering on fraud in a student presentation I was actually shushed by an academic colleague. We are now teaching science as if it is horoscopes - genuflecting to techniques and blindly following the loudest voices and the most glitzy hubris. This is not being measured because real quality in higher education is hard to measure and it is much easier to create bogus goals and outcomes that are more spreadsheetable. It stinks.