UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #19

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
But does it once there is something that indicates what is alleged didn’t happen like what seems to be the swelling disappearing without a trace?
There's nothing to indicate what the doctors said happened, didnt happen. Swelling can go down. It doesn't mean the doctors imagined it or the bleeding, or that there was no injury causing the bleeding.
 
The way I was reading it was that the respiratory problems necessitated immediate treatment ie intubation if that wasn’t possible a tracheotomy was planned. That to me sounds like the docs would continue with baby n up until successful intubation or if necessary tracheotomy. Not wait four hours for the ah team to arrive. If the swelling or whatever the problem was seen right up until that cardiac issue and then literally disappeared when the ah team arrived what was the actual problem? As I say swelling doesn’t just disappear without a trace, as far as I know the strongest anti inflammatory drugs aren’t capable of that so for the ah specialist to not see a single trace of injury or swelling so soon after it was reported by the coch team might mean whatever was causing the problem had rectified itself or wasn’t present in the first place. I can assure you dr potter will have full knowledge of what a throat looks like and is as good as any to see swelling, injury or blood. That’s quite literally his job.

four hours after this problem ie swelling was last seen and then the adrenaline might explain why it wasn’t noticed but the injury should still be there. I’m not really questioning the blord as it would only be present with an open injury, the swelling or injury itself would still be there especially with a baby whose wounds do not close easily as is haemophiliac.
BBM.

But you're arguing with a highly skilled neonatal consultant (Dr Gibbs) that 6 shots of adrenaline wouldn't in fact reduce a swelling, because anti inflammatory drugs wouldn't? These are neonatal babies who do not respond in the same way as children or adults - their organs/tissues/muscles do not react the same way as not completely formed. So what you would expect to see in a fully developed human being would not necessarily be the case in a neonate, as the experts have said a few times. That's why Dr Evans and Dr Bohin's testimony is important.

Of course, Dr Potter knows what a swelling looks like, but as previous posters have explained, as did Dr Evans, the trauma could have occurred anywhere in the upper airway, which covers a lot of area, not all observable for the task at hand. Potter said he did not notice blood or swelling in the throat. Dr Bohin said the trauma could have been the "local mouth area", so if Dr Potter intubated through the nose, he could have missed any injury in the mouth. Being an anaesthetist, he wasn't going to be examining the baby's upper airway in detail - just the throat in order to intubate.

As for trauma noticed AFTER the intubation - we don't know what was recorded or noted other than apnoea. And if it was relevant, wouldn't the defence have picked up on it during cross examination and made the same point you are making?

MOO
 
Last edited:
There's nothing to indicate what the doctors said happened, didnt happen. Swelling can go down. It doesn't mean the doctors imagined it or the bleeding, or that there was no injury causing the bleeding.
My other point was that this was a child with hemophilia thus presumably any injury especially by trauma would more than likely be visible as it wouldn’t close or clot as easily. I would just like to hear the proposed mechanism by which any swelling would not just reduce in size but to reduce to nothing in that timeframe.
 
My other point was that this was a child with hemophilia thus presumably any injury especially by trauma would more than likely be visible as it wouldn’t close or clot as easily. I would just like to hear the proposed mechanism by which any swelling would not just reduce in size but to reduce to nothing in that timeframe.

If for example a person put a tube down a tiny babies throat and jiggled it around..the injury itself and possible blood may be lower than the epiglottis...it would be where the tip of the tube would be that caused the damage.
The swelling of the epiglottis is likely not the injury site but more from friction or irritation of the said tube moving.
The tiny epiglottis area would swell at slight irritation.
4 hours later having no more irritation plus adrenaline and possibly other medication to reduce swelling it could easily have subsided significantly as it wasn't the injury site itself
 
My other point was that this was a child with hemophilia thus presumably any injury especially by trauma would more than likely be visible as it wouldn’t close or clot as easily. I would just like to hear the proposed mechanism by which any swelling would not just reduce in size but to reduce to nothing in that timeframe.
It wouldn't be visible if it wasnt... visible. ie lower down the throat obscured by vocal chords etc.

Swelling can go down. They believed the adrenaline may have helped reduce the swelling . IMO it's not neccessary to know the exact mechanism to accept that possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,783
Total visitors
2,939

Forum statistics

Threads
602,631
Messages
18,144,166
Members
231,468
Latest member
CapeCodTodd
Back
Top