Baby P doctor flees.

[Gromit]

One for AOG:

// A doctor accused of failing to spot that Baby P was being abused fled the country this morning ahead of a hearing where she is charged with misconduct.

Rebecca Poulet, QC, prosecuting for the GMC said that Dr Al-Zayyat was seen by a psychiatrist on Friday but had since left Britain.

The GMC’s fitness to practice panel, sitting in London, has adjourned to consider whether the public hearing can continue in the doctor’s absence. //

Let rip...

[sp1814]

Gromit

et voila!

naomi24 - the dead baby is not the subject. I am making light of the fact that dailymailers get a metaphorical erection when they see a story where they can roll out their usual 'stuff' about Muslims.

[sp1814]

VHG

No - not Tories.

I referred to right whingers/dailymailers.

These are not synonyms. I have plenty of Conservative-voting friends. They're normal, level-headed decent people. They don't post weird messages on boards crying that their grandchildren might have to live next to immigrant families, or even worse, see nothing but Asians at a doctor's surgery.

Please do not try to tar Tories with that brush. Most of them are ordinary decent folk.

[naomi24]

No need to explain, sp. I know exactly what you're doing - and not only is it irrelevant, nobody has taken your bait. Furthermore, it doesn't address the question.

[Sqad]

Seadragon.....ANY medical condition can be missed by ANY doctor.....believe me.

[naomi24]

Sqad, just out of interest, would a doctor be aware from medical records if a child was on an 'at risk' register?

[naomi24]

Yes, you're right No Knowledge. There isn't a question. I'll swap that for 'issue'.

[Sqad]

naomi..yes , the Dr, should be aware, but our "fleeing Dr." said that she had not been notified.

[naomi24]

So do we presume she didn't read the baby's notes?

[Sqad]

naomi...we cannot presume anything. that was what the GMC enquiry would have been all about.

[naomi24]

Well, it seems to me that if a child's medical records show it to be on an 'at risk' register, she couldn't have read the notes.

[Sqad]

naomi...you are assuming that the information of the "at risk" was indeed in the notes. We don't know that.

NoKno......it is not always east to examine an irritable and "squawky" child, however expert you are. Use force and the parents may well shout "assault"

[McMouse]

Doctors are just as prone to making mistakes as anyone else. What about military bombing wrong target. Accidental poisoning of water supply. Fire started at Windsor Castle.

[naomi24]

Sorry Sqad, I'm confused. I asked if the fact that a child is on at 'at risk' register would be noted on its medical records and you said the doctor should be aware. Simple common sense would dictate that something as important as that should be placed prominently on a child's medical records, and yet this doctor was apparently oblivious to it. Either that, or she ignored it. Frankly, I think she's hopped it because she knows she was negligent. There is no defence.

[Sqad]

naomi, because a child on the "at risk" register should be in the medical records, doesn't mean to say, for many reasons, that it HAS been inserted.......is that a bit clearer?

It should have been, but I cannot say with certainty that it was.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to why she "hopped it."

[naomi24]

Right, I see. So if a child is on an 'at risk' register, that information isn't necessarily included in its medical records. Some system! God, that's frightening!

[Sqad]

naomi......".human error" it is called and happens in ALL aspects of life.

[naomi24]

I think that's an excuse, Sqad. This child had been visited many, many times by social workers. Are you seriously tellng me that every one of them over a period of time forgot to log details with his doctor. I don't think so. According to this.........

http://www.guardian.c...baby-peter-doctor-gmc

...........the doctor was aware that he was on the child protection register.

//She is accused of knowing he was on the child protection register but failing to carry out an adequate examination, failing to investigate the explanation offered for his injuries and failing to record whether she considered the possibility that he was the victim of child abuse.//

I'd say this is more likely to be a case of negligence, rather than one of human error - which is why she has 'hopped it'.