Death

rubertoe

Having just gone through something similar to what MsM describes. LPC is a godsend.

msmancunia

rubertoe wrote:

Having just gone through something similar to what MsM describes. LPC is a godsend.

Ditto. Hope you're doing ok Ruberto.

To the OP - just noticed what time you've been posting. Ever thought that going to bed at a reasonable time (unless you're working shifts) might cut down on that insomnia induced paranoia?

rjsterry

jejv wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1 msm, although thankfully, I've not had any direct experience. Furthermore, comparing the failings of Cynthia Bower, Ian Nicholson and Mid Staffs NHS Trust, serious as they are, to dictators like Gaddafi and Ceaucescu is just ridiculous.

Thankyou. (Yes, really).

[I keep thinking Sir David Nicholson is called Ian. Sorry.]

Perhaps David and Cynthia failed to kill so many people simply because they had less power and less time.

Like Harry Lime, they seem to have had little concern for the little people.

What is terrible is not just the bogus statistics - familiar behind the old iron curtain - and the many thousands of unnecessary deaths - but the deliberate and systematic destruction of the lives and careers of those who have sought to make UK healthcare better. And the brutalising effect on less courageous healthcare workers.

David has repeatedly told terminological inexactitudes about gagging Gary Walker to the select comittee, and we have Tory MPs after his scalp. Sadly only metaphorically.

hunt has been making noises about gagging agreements.
But his noises would be more credible if he were to put - say - Ed Jesudason and Stephen Bolsin on the NHS Comissioning Board.

Trouble with the NHS Comissioning Board is it looks a bit like an extra layer of plausible deniability.

They didn't kill anybody as far as I know. Various illnesses killed them. Poor standards of care contributed to people either dying sooner, or not making a recovery, where they might otherwise have done so, but that is not the same as deliberately killing someone. The general culture of arse-covering - which certainly isn't limited to the NHS - and its negative impacts, is something worth discussing but the hyperbole and exaggeration aren't the way to get people interested, as this thread demonstrates.

MrSweary

Veronese68 wrote:

I agree with you both, the first words of sanity on this thread. I don't believe anyone involved with the NHS sets out to kill people and I think the comparisons are insulting to put it mildly.
I've had too many dealings with the NHS for my liking. But I'm still here to tell the tale thanks entirely to the people that looked after me.

Sadly I've seen first hand deliberate neglect from NHS staff, gross incompetence and more over the years - it didn't turn out so well for the person who was subject to that neglect - the only consolation for my family is that at least some of the people responsible didn't get away with it. Heaven knows what other damage they did before they were stopped. The NHS is a pretty broken organisation. I wish this were an isolated incident but I've seen as much bad as good.

I also dated and ICU nurse once who told me enough horror stories to last a lifetime, not to mention the crippling bureaucracy. I got the impression of an organisation that had been 'management consulted' to death.

Cleat Eastwood

msmancunia wrote:

jejv wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Is the OP accusing Cynthia Bower of being an assassin?

I think that we need more posts like this on bike forums.... :shock:

I think he was aiming more for mass murderer than mere assassin.

And we haven't even gotten on to the CQC and Care Homes.

But folk like Cynthia Bower and Ian Nicholson are just the monkeys in this story.

Who are the Organ Grinders ?

Stay safe folks.

If you're in hospital over the weekend, make sure you have friends arround. Ask the nurses how much cash the hospital gets for putting you on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Of course all this only matters if - for some strange reason - you care about those little people who have to rely on private insurance or the NHS for medical care, and can't afford, or more likely are just too spendthrift, to retain decent doctors.

Don't knock the LCP - thanks to the Daily Mail stirring up hysteria people see it as some kind of callous money-saving euthanasia policy.

My father was put on it, with my consent. It's an end-of-life strategy - designed to make someone's "end-of-life" as easy as possible. It pre-authorises medical staff to give medication to ease the suffering of someone who is dying, whether that's pain control, things to help them swallow, or sedation. My dad was semi-concious, scared and delirious, in dreadful pain, and fighting the inevitable every step of the way. The treatment he received on the LCP stopped him panicking, calmed him down, and took away his pain. I just wish it had been available when I was 23 and had to sit by the side of my mum's bed for almost 36 hours and watch helplessly and terrified as she died a long, slow painful death.

Just because you read something in the Daily (hate) Mail doesn't mean it's true you know.

You - or your dad - must have been one of the lucky ones - my dad wasnt so lucky - and I could give you 3 cases of the LCP ending peoples lives because they were a burden - 2 in the last year. Never bought into the hagiography of nurses - incompetence is in evidence in all walks of life - even more so malice - in hospitals especially (private or otherwise) the monitoring of standards should be rigorous.

msmancunia

He was very lucky I think - his PCT was Oldham - if he'd died over the council border in Tameside I think things would have been rather different. I think their entire PCT is under special measures at the moment. Very sorry your dad (and you) had to go through that, Cleat.

It's a toughy though, and I think the difference between terminally ill, (e.g. cancer) and just old and infirm doesn't make things any easier. A doctor has to be able to tell that a person is actually dying before they go on the LCP, and with a cancer sufferer, that's sometimes fairly clear cut. After the experience of watching my mum go, even I could tell when I walked in to see my dad one Friday morning and just knew it was going to be that weekend. Something had just changed.
I think the main problems with the LCP stem from staff not being educated properly about what it's for, or not instigating it at the right time. When it's used properly, it works very well; from giving a nurse the ability and authority to give pain control, or drugs to ease swallowing when they lose their gag reflex, to having someone free to sit by me when he actually went, and explaining what was happening so that I didn't get scared, and could talk to him and say my goodbyes.

-spider-

I sat with my wife as she was told "it's weeks not months", I can still remember these chilling words, but the person who delivered the message and the specialist nurse there at the time were both excellent. I feel I have to stand up for the NHS (in this case NHS Highland) their care for my wife through the last weeks of her life was excellent - with superb support from the local hospice and Marie Curie which allowed her to come home and spend her last days with me and the kids. The NHS do great things too.

Earlier in my wife's illness the NHS in my area couldn't cope with the problem - she was sent to neighbouring Grampian for treatment. Ultimately it was beyond them and she had to go to Glasgow for further treatment. The clinical side of the NHS was always good and the care my wife recieved excellent.

I know this doesn't address the issue for those who have lost someone dear to them through error or incompetence and I really feel sorry for people in these situations but we have to recognise the good side too. Death is never pleasant therefore how we manage the approach to death (in those situations when we do know it is imminent) is extremely important.

jejv

msmancunia wrote:

Ever thought that those "financial incentives" might actually be payment to the hospital to ensure that there is enough staff who are properly trained in pallative care on duty to cover?

That could make sense, but only if there are complex systems in place to check what's going on. ( teams of statisticians etc) There's an obvious potential for trouble.

msmancunia wrote:

Not to mention equipment for washing and bathing, special beds and mattresses to help avoid pressure sores, etc etc?

Don't read Private Eye anymore. New Statesman, Intelligent Life and the Grauniad for me.

20 years ago I'd have gone for The World Service, and The Economist. I hadn't really considered Private Eye.
Why would I listen to the (relatively) parochial and sensationalist Today Programme when I could listen to Newshour or Analysis.

The World Service on 648kHz in the east of the UK, or SW elsewhere. We have his'n'hers SW radios.
The World Service didn't just report, it analysed what would happen next. And it had a wonderful mix of programmes.
Similarly the old Economist. The Economist doesn't make silly mistakes about capital cities anymore, but at the same time it doesn't seem to predict the future the way it used to. I used to read The Economist in part because it would say what would happen next week, sometimes with uncanny accuracy.

The Economist is more boring now. Still clever, but less likely to take risks.
The World Service. Well, RIP, really.

Now, for general news, I 'd look at the Economist, Telegraph, Grauniad, BBC websites.
But[print only, mostly] Private Eye covers stories often years before the dailies or the BBC decide they're interesting enough to report on. Though this is changing, as select commitees cite Private Eye as the cause of their questions, and the Daily Fail figures that maybe some of the P E stories are good for circulation.

Then now there are many specialised forums and websites which are more informative than general news.

I'm not aware that Leveson had any bad word for Hislop - unlike just about every other editor he interviewed.

P E does not appear to me to hound "little people" who are in unfortunate circumstances merely to satisfy the Schadenfreude of its socially insecure readership. Or "Monster" people.

"Intelligent Life" ?? That's a lifestyle magazine. We get sent it from time to time.

What is it to be ?

- Carpark ?

- Private Eye Subscription ?

jejv

rjsterry wrote:

They didn't kill anybody as far as I know. Various illnesses killed them. Poor standards of care contributed to people either dying sooner, or not making a recovery, where they might otherwise have done so, but that is not the same as deliberately killing someone.

"In the long run, we are all dead"

If I shoot my neighbour in the head, that does not change their likelihood of dying. They will certainly die, sooner or later.

If I did shoot my neighbour, It would not be unsurprising if their family was upset, and expected the Police to do something about it.

If the people had died in a plane crash (they're going to die some day anyway, remember), we would expect the AAIB or NTSB, or ... to put a load of highly qualified aviation experts on the case, investigate what happended and the surrounding circumstances, and produce a report that explains carefully what happened (without blame), and often recommends how such crashes can be prevented in future. And expect the CAA or FAA to regulate based on recommendations. There are problems: AF447, Dreamliner batteries etc., but generally scheduled flight in the West is pretty safe.

But Cynthia fired the medically qualified inspectors. There is now no minimum qualification for CQC inspectors.
She closed the whistleblowers reporting system.

In short she turned the organisation into a sham.

Care homes could get "good" assessments, even as police investigations were starting.

So you would not want to rely on a CQC Care Home assesment when helping mum decide where to go.

In hospitals, the opinions of highly skilled and qualified medical staff were no longer required.

This is not news.

rjsterry wrote:

The general culture of arse-covering - which certainly isn't limited to the NHS - and its negative impacts, is something worth discussing but the hyperbole and exaggeration aren't the way to get people interested, as this thread demonstrates.

That is true.

But when I heard Andy Burnham say that he passed the report to the CQC, that made me very upset.

I think if more people were upset about such things Mid Staffs, Bristol,... might have been avoided, or at least mitigated.

To me Andy Burnham's words translated something like:
- I got the report
- Obviously I didn't read it, because I'm not going to do anything about it, and if I read it their might be deniability problems.
- I gave it to a sham quango instead, knowing that I can trust the Quango to ignore it for me.
- I can get away with saying this, because hardly anyone has been paying attention

@msmancunia: Best not to listen to this week's File on 4

msmancunia

@ jejv

I was a World Service employee for several years and still listen every day - a shadow of what it was but still the best thing the BBC does and with some extremely honest staff with a good moral code. Economist - yes, when I have time. Telegraph - no, (even though my lefty father worked for it for thirty five years my lefty mother wouldn't have it in the house). Private Eye - just don't have time. But, I think I'm up to speed on what goes on in the world that I care about, without it.

rjsterry

jejv wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

They didn't kill anybody as far as I know. Various illnesses killed them. Poor standards of care contributed to people either dying sooner, or not making a recovery, where they might otherwise have done so, but that is not the same as deliberately killing someone.

"In the long run, we are all dead"

If I shoot my neighbour in the head, that does not change their likelihood of dying. They will certainly die, sooner or later.

If I did shoot my neighbour, It would not be unsurprising if their family was upset, and expected the Police to do something about it.

If the people had died in a plane crash (they're going to die some day anyway, remember), we would expect the AAIB or NTSB, or ... to put a load of highly qualified aviation experts on the case, investigate what happended and the surrounding circumstances, and produce a report that explains carefully what happened (without blame), and often recommends how such crashes can be prevented in future. And expect the CAA or FAA to regulate based on recommendations. There are problems: AF447, Dreamliner batteries etc., but generally scheduled flight in the West is pretty safe.

But Cynthia fired the medically qualified inspectors. There is now no minimum qualification for CQC inspectors.
She closed the whistleblowers reporting system.

In short she turned the organisation into a sham.

Care homes could get "good" assessments, even as police investigations were starting.

So you would not want to rely on a CQC Care Home assesment when helping mum decide where to go.

In hospitals, the opinions of highly skilled and qualified medical staff were no longer required.

This is not news.

rjsterry wrote:

The general culture of arse-covering - which certainly isn't limited to the NHS - and its negative impacts, is something worth discussing but the hyperbole and exaggeration aren't the way to get people interested, as this thread demonstrates.

That is true.

But when I heard Andy Burnham say that he passed the report to the CQC, that made me very upset.

I think if more people were upset about such things Mid Staffs, Bristol,... might have been avoided, or at least mitigated.

To me Andy Burnham's words translated something like:
- I got the report
- Obviously I didn't read it, because I'm not going to do anything about it, and if I read it their might be deniability problems.
- I gave it to a sham quango instead, knowing that I can trust the Quango to ignore it for me.
- I can get away with saying this, because hardly anyone has been paying attention

@msmancunia: Best not to listen to this week's File on 4

I wasn't saying, "well, they were going to die of something, so it doesn't matter"; failure in a duty of care, particularly in a healthcare context, is a very serious issue, but it is not the same as murder. I'd argue that suggesting that it is makes it easier for people to dismiss your argument, and therefore hinders the situation from being resolved.

jejv

rjsterry wrote:

I wasn't saying, "well, they were going to die of something, so it doesn't matter"; failure in a duty of care, particularly in a healthcare context, is a very serious issue, but it is not the same as murder. I'd argue that suggesting that it is makes it easier for people to dismiss your argument, and therefore hinders the situation from being resolved.

I don't think "failure in a duty of care" really covers it.
A catatastrophic failure of corporate governance and culture is closer, but is still too polite.
Corporate culture and good governance come from the top.
For me, responsibility follows power. Noblesse Oblige and all that, old man.

On today's Today Programme, it was put to David Behan that more nurses should be hung out to dry.
No doubt there are many healthcare workers who shouldn't be there (there are a lot of healthcare workers).
But in many cases, the front line workers too should be considered as Victims of Abuse - sacked if they fail to comply with demented diktats, and sacked if they complain that the diktats are dangerous and insane. It's not as if they can go and work for a different health service next door.

Somewhat reminiscent of the treatment of the peasantry in Mao's Great Leap Forward.

Like Harry Lime, Sir David and Cynthia were peddling bogus healthcare. And like Harry, they sought to eliminate those who got in their way.
But Cynthia and Sir David killed a lot more people than Harry, and those who crossed them suffered a lot more.

jejv

Sheesh. Looks like those tinfoil-hatted Socialist Workers at the Daily Pinkograph are at it again.

Earlier I compared Sir David and Cynthia with Muammar Gaddafi. I now realise that this was grossly misguided,
and unfair to Mr Gaddafi. From the latest estimates, a couple of Libyan civil wars every year in the UK wouldn't kill nearly as many people as the NHS.

gbsahne001

can't read it because of the Telegraph's new charging policy.

jejv

gbsahne wrote:

can't read it because of the Telegraph's new charging policy.

Kindof all over the news now.
I used to get that from the Telegraph, then it stopped - I could see it again, from different machines/IP addresses. I imagined the telegraph had decided to back off for a bit, and hook more punters.
I was on the point of signing up.

Perhaps one of the servants signed me up on their own account. They could have signed me up for the FT as well.

The Grauniad covers it more pointedly somewhere round here.

jejv

The Daily Pinkograph wrote:

Cover-up over hospital scandal
The NHS watchdog conducted a “cover-up” in which senior officials ordered that evidence of its failure to prevent a scandal at a hospital maternity unit be destroyed, a report will disclose.

The regulator has come under fire in recent years for failing to protect patients and prevent a series of scandals, as it relied on “tick-box” systems which let hospitals vouch for their own safety.

Wednesday’s independent report suggests that senior managers were more concerned about protecting CQC’s reputation than about the lives of patients when they ordered the suppression of the review. It concludes: “We think that the information contained in the report was sufficiently important that the deliberate failure to provide it could properly be characterised as a 'cover-up’.”

Cynthia - why did you let it come to that ?!?
Why didn't you sack all the qualified inspectors?

jejv

And now we get to the Organ Grinders.

If yer too skinflint to subscribe, try google news: "Roger Davidson" "Andy Burnham"
And click "all news sources" "repeat the search with the omitted results included".
I know some of you find that hard.

The Sunday Pinkograph wrote:

Mr Davidson’s testimony, now made public, was part of thousands of hours of evidence heard under oath by the Francis inquiry into how up to 1,200 patients came to die needlessly at Mid Staffordshire trust.

It forms part of a tranche of documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph which detail a regulator apparently intent on suppressing negative publicity about the NHS, amid political pressure from then Labour ministers and their advisers before the election.

Other documents include a letter from Andy Burnham, then health secretary and now Labour’s shadow health spokesman, telling the health care regulator [JEJV: I.e. Cynthia] in November 2009 that its role was to “restore public confidence in the NHS”.

Another document shows how Mr Burnham’s special adviser said she was “frankly disgusted” by television coverage exposing a hospital scandal before ministers were briefed on it.

The bit I don't understand is why Andy thought Cynthia needed telling.

Of course, if you were paying attention, this is not news, the news is that this is news.

@msmancunia: Time to ditch that Intelligent Life sub, and sign up to Private Eye. Not as glossy, but it's a lot cheaper, with a lot more content. Then it may tell you stuff you don't want to hear.
Does the title not say something about the function of the publication, and its target audience ?

DonDaddyD

Yeah erm, wow. I mean wow, and this is coming from me, just wow. OP, you need to think about that. Even the title is just wow.

OK, so yeah, erm, I may be a little too close to this and certainly am not going to embark on a massive debate where we are all arguing over half truths and misinformation.

Something wrong certainly did happen within the CQC, that hospital and the people who decided to cover-up the reports. I dread to speculate. I don't think accusing anyone of being a mass murderer and/or demanding the death penalty for them is going to help for a multitude of reasons.

Having said that, if you are linked to any of the families that suffered as a result of the aforementioned actions then I am sorry for your loss.

DDD.

jejv

Hello, DDD.
Good to hear from you.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yeah erm, wow. I mean wow, and this is coming from me, just wow. OP, you need to think about that. Even the title is just wow.

Well - to me - whacking thousands of folk every year is, umm, well, Wow!

The IRA never managed anything remotely like that. Al Quaeda didn't come close either, not even in 2001. RTAs were more of a problem in the USA in 2001.

Then the deaths we're talking about aren't the Exciting kinds of deaths that individually make the news. Dying of dehydration in your own sh1t isn't as televisual as being hacked to death on the street by a couple of loonies.

But the effect is the same.

It's exciting when some little girl gets molested and murdered by a loony. But less exciting when some folk get squished by a truck driver on the A14.

Every time I hear of one of these Exciting deaths, I think it's deeply insulting to all the other people who have died unnecessarily in less entertaining ways, and insulting to their friends and families.

I do know this is an odd point of view. But is it irrational ? What's wrong with it ?
Is an attempt at rationality irrational ?

Time to do some work. I'll get back to your other comments later.

Regards,

J.

DonDaddyD

jejv wrote:

Hello, DDD.
Good to hear from you.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yeah erm, wow. I mean wow, and this is coming from me, just wow. OP, you need to think about that. Even the title is just wow.

Well - to me - whacking thousands of folk every year is, umm, well, Wow!

The IRA never managed anything remotely like that. Al Quaeda didn't come close either, not even in 2001. RTAs were more of a problem in the USA in 2001.

Then the deaths we're talking about aren't the Exciting kinds of deaths that individually make the news. Dying of dehydration in your own sh1t isn't as televisual as being hacked to death on the street by a couple of loonies.

But the effect is the same.

It's exciting when some little girl gets molested and murdered by a loony. But less exciting when some folk get squished by a truck driver on the A14.

Every time I hear of one of these Exciting deaths, I think it's deeply insulting to all the other people who have died unnecessarily in less entertaining ways, and insulting to their friends and families.

I do know this is an odd point of view. But is it irrational ? What's wrong with it ?
Is an attempt at rationality irrational ?

Time to do some work. I'll get back to your other comments later.

Regards,

J.

I struggle to see the point of this post or how it relates to mine or even the claims in your OP that the people involved in the CQC/Hospital cover up are mass murderers who should suffer the death penalty.

I think you may need to take a step back.

Tigger con carne

I must say, as an employee of the NHS, it's all true. There's nothing we like more than slipping out of our skins, reverting to our lizard form and, after chucking on our Illuminati slippers and Masonic smoking jacket, discussing how we can rub out a few more plebian patients

jejv

DonDaddyD wrote:

jejv wrote:

Hello, DDD.
Good to hear from you.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yeah erm, wow. I mean wow, and this is coming from me, just wow. OP, you need to think about that. Even the title is just wow.

Well - to me - whacking thousands of folk every year is, umm, well, Wow!

The IRA never managed anything remotely like that. Al Quaeda didn't come close either, not even in 2001. RTAs were more of a problem in the USA in 2001.

Then the deaths we're talking about aren't the Exciting kinds of deaths that individually make the news. Dying of dehydration in your own sh1t isn't as televisual as being hacked to death on the street by a couple of loonies.

But the effect is the same.

It's exciting when some little girl gets molested and murdered by a loony. But less exciting when some folk get squished by a truck driver on the A14.

Every time I hear of one of these Exciting deaths, I think it's deeply insulting to all the other people who have died unnecessarily in less entertaining ways, and insulting to their friends and families.

I do know this is an odd point of view. But is it irrational ? What's wrong with it ?
Is an attempt at rationality irrational ?

Time to do some work. I'll get back to your other comments later.

Regards,

J.

I struggle to see the point of this post or how it relates to mine or even the claims in your OP that the people involved in the CQC/Hospital cover up are mass murderers who should suffer the death penalty.

I think you may need to take a step back.

Hello again.
I struggle to see your difficulty.
I'm just trying to address "Wow!".
We seem to live in a society where:
one weird death = Wow!
thousands of boring deaths = Meh.
But death is the same either way.
To me, on the whole, less deaths = good.

Then we can get on to the other stuff.

jejv

Tigger con carne wrote:

I must say, as an employee of the NHS, it's all true. There's nothing we like more than slipping out of our skins, reverting to our lizard form and, after chucking on our Illuminati slippers and Masonic smoking jacket, discussing how we can rub out a few more plebian patients

That's quite cool. Do you know Tom Cruise and John Travolta ? What are they like ? I mean in their lizard form ?

I don't see why you would be personally offended. I have no A Priori reason to criticise you.

Perhaps you've been lucky enough not to work in a hospital crippled by PFI debt.

But there do seem to be folk in the NHS doing very bad things.
A couple of examples:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... cm6802.htm

Kay Sheldon wrote:

By way of a personal example, on one occasion on which I had been sectioned, a nurse was trying to get me to take some medication that had previously given me horrendous side effects. I tried to explain, but she did not listen and pushed the medicine pot into my face. As a reflex, I pushed her away. Shortly afterwards, several nurses descended on me, held me down, and forcibly medicated me. Some time later, I gained access to my notes and read on the incident form that I had attacked the nurse without provocation and wrestled her to the ground before being pulled off by a student nurse. That simply did not happen. More worryingly, the student nurse countersigned the form as true. Thus, things can be written to justify actions and to defend decisions without evidence or the service user's knowledge and, hence, without a right to reply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... thway.html

The Daily Telegraph wrote:

Susan Phillips, 50, believes that had it not been for her own training she would not have known that her father had been placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge.

Mrs Phillips, who has worked both as a hospital nurse and in a care home, has herself nursed people on the LCP and is not opposed to it in principle. But she said she “cannot believe” that the hospital would have acted without informing the family.

Robert Goold, 69, from Stevenage, Herts, spent at least six days days on the pathway – which is designed for use only in the “last hours or days” of life – with nutrition and fluids withdrawn until his death last week, according to his daughter.

She claims that the care he received at the end of his life was “barbaric” and said the experience had left her family with nightmares.

Regardless of whether or not you accept the validity or truthfulness of these particular examples, I would think it odd that you supposed that such things do not happen.

While English Common Law likes to find witches and burn them, that doesn't really help getting to the root of the problem.

If we had the AAIB or the NTSB or the BEA to investigate such incidents, they would be interested in all significant causal factors.

While they might be critical of the failure of the individual nurses to follow Standard Operating Procedures, they'd also want to know about in service training to prevent such occurrences, pressure from management, fatigue, and corporate culture. I assume the nurses in question didn't set out on their careers intent on behaving like this.


So, Tigger - What do you think we should do with Stephen Bolsin ?

DonDaddyD

jejv wrote:

Hello again.
I struggle to see your difficulty.
I'm just trying to address "Wow!".
We seem to live in a society where:
one weird death = Wow!
thousands of boring deaths = Meh.
But death is the same either way.
To me, on the whole, less deaths = good.

Then we can get on to the other stuff.

My wow comment was in relation to the structure and tone of your first post, and not my view on death/s or the the manner in which a life is lost.

daviesee

I know several nurses who work in the NHS.

Here are some simple facts.

Nurses have to do as they are told or be sacked/driven out.
Nurses cannot whistle blow unless they want to lose their jobs.

What I mean by that is that the accuser gets persecuted and the accused gets a cover up. The persecution starts at bullying and ends with the accuser leaving the profession one way or another.

Make of that what you will.

jejv

daviesee wrote:

Here are some simple facts.

Nurses have to do as they are told or be sacked/driven out.
Nurses cannot whistle blow unless they want to lose their jobs.

And my understanding is that medical students learn fast to shut up when they see things happening that shouldn't be happening.

Went to a "What's it like to be a doctor" do at a uni with one of the kids. There was a rather eloquent SHO [old money] from North London speaking. I asked him what he would do if he saw something happening that shouldn't be happening ? Would his management support him ? He became strangely less eloquent. Kid was obviously mortified. But I hope some of the rest of the audience got the point.

jejv

DonDaddyD wrote:

[My wow comment was in relation to the structure and tone of your first post, and not my view on death/s or the the manner in which a life is lost.

Strangely short post DDD.

I'm a bit rubbish at this stuff, but I think "metaphor", "analogy" may be the sort of words you're looking for.
Try watching the film.
It is a Great film.

EKE_38BPM

11 out if the last 19 posts are from the OP. Make of that what you will.

daviesee

EKE_38BPM wrote:

11 out if the last 19 posts are from the OP. Make of that what you will.

He responds to other's posts :?:

DonDaddyD

jejv wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

[My wow comment was in relation to the structure and tone of your first post, and not my view on death/s or the the manner in which a life is lost.

Strangely short post DDD.

Yes, take from that what you will.