UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[Charlot123]

who then and in your opinion have analysed her correctly?

No one.

I don’t think it is necessary to explain the actions for a trial, but if I remember correctly, the first assumption, even during the trial, was that she was killing neonates to attract the attention of Dr. A. Which is in synch with MSbP idea. It was dropped when they realized that Dr. A emerged in the unit in the end of 2015, halfway into the so-called “murder spree”.

Not commenting on the case itself now. I personally think that a woman, of course, can kill, even be a serial killer, usually driven by financial reasons, jealousy or revenge, but harming a baby for a man’s attention is utter bollocks as a theory.

Snowdon, too, totally misses it when he mentions “God’s complex”; this motive might be expected of some serial killers, but not in the medical field. I don’t have the time to write about it now, but I shall try to explain later.

 

[marynnu]

.


I honestly think any man should think twice before they "psychoanalyze" her again. They all fail.

Most of interpretations of female behaviors initiated by male psychoanalysts are now obsolete, but at least in their time, they listened to the womens' stories, and they tried. But then, comes one mediocre pediatrician, like Roy Meadow, positions himself as a psychiatrist, and sorry, British psychiatry now is tainted by his twisted views of motherhood. His activity will be a huge black mark on British justice for decades.

And then - LL's case was started by men, handled by men and interpreted by men.

The women's voices are not heard. I think it is concerning. Especially given the predominance of female nurses in the profession. And yet only men are trying to explain "why she did it", and fail. In the meantine, educated British females with medical and law degreed are being shut down.

Women with medical & law degrees are being shut down? What on earth do you mean? And do the names of Eirian Powell, Alison Kelly, Sandie Bohin etc. mean nothing to you? There were female consultants involved too, remember

No one.

I don’t think it is necessary to explain the actions for a trial, but if I remember correctly, the first assumption, even during the trial, was that she was killing neonates to attract the attention of Dr. A. Which is in synch with MSbP idea. It was dropped when they realized that Dr. A emerged in the unit in the end of 2015, halfway into the so-called “murder spree”.

Not commenting on the case itself now. I personally think that a woman, of course, can kill, even be a serial killer, usually driven by financial reasons, jealousy or revenge, but harming a baby for a man’s attention is utter bollocks as a theory.

Snowdon, too, totally misses it when he mentions “God’s complex”; this motive might be expected of some serial killers, but not in the medical field. I don’t have the time to write about it now, but I shall try to explain later.

I think God complex fits perfectly for a health care serial killer. But who cares really, we'll probably never know her motives. She might not even know herself.

 

[joltz]

No one.

I don’t think it is necessary to explain the actions for a trial, but if I remember correctly, the first assumption, even during the trial, was that she was killing neonates to attract the attention of Dr. A. Which is in synch with MSbP idea. It was dropped when they realized that Dr. A emerged in the unit in the end of 2015, halfway into the so-called “murder spree”.

Not commenting on the case itself now. I personally think that a woman, of course, can kill, even be a serial killer, usually driven by financial reasons, jealousy or revenge, but harming a baby for a man’s attention is utter bollocks as a theory.

Snowdon, too, totally misses it when he mentions “God’s complex”; this motive might be expected of some serial killers, but not in the medical field. I don’t have the time to write about it now, but I shall try to explain later.

What are you talking about?

God complex is the go-to motive for health care killers

 

[Furore]

Speaking of women. There are plenty of mothers, whose children died, under Letby’s care, who are also having their voices stifled….IMO

 

[Sweeper2000]

No one.

I don’t think it is necessary to explain the actions for a trial, but if I remember correctly, the first assumption, even during the trial, was that she was killing neonates to attract the attention of Dr. A. Which is in synch with MSbP idea. It was dropped when they realized that Dr. A emerged in the unit in the end of 2015, halfway into the so-called “murder spree”.

Not commenting on the case itself now. I personally think that a woman, of course, can kill, even be a serial killer, usually driven by financial reasons, jealousy or revenge, but harming a baby for a man’s attention is utter bollocks as a theory.

Snowdon, too, totally misses it when he mentions “God’s complex”; this motive might be expected of some serial killers, but not in the medical field. I don’t have the time to write about it now, but I shall try to explain later.

i would actually guess that this is not true or atleast an innaccurate account of what was proposed byt eh prosecution. I'm not sure but i think it was not stated as the reason for why she did it just a proposition. In addition it may be the case if true that letby thought the presence of doc choc was an additional benefit to her on top of whatever it was that made her do it not the sole reason.

 

[Ruthbullock]

Ok, so it looks like the jury was paying attention. They decide that in the cases of Baby H and Baby N, there was an element of sub-optimal care and not Lucy Letby at fault.

So in the remaining cases, they did find Nurse Letby to be GUILTY as charged, correct? They did not find any evidence of suboptimal care.

So can we agree that the jury got that right?

<modsnip - personalizing> the jury made their decision based on the evidence that was presented and how it was presented- we all know that is how a trial works. I have no idea how strongly each juror felt, or what arguments helped them make their decisions so I can’t say whether they were right or wrong. In some of the cases the jury couldn’t agree- so to argue that the jury was right, we are unable to say, was the juror who strongly felt not guilty even as a lone person who went against everyone else in the room, or was the majority who perhaps had a herd mentality right- we don’t know. That is why it is so impossible to have a logical discussion when the default response is the jury said so, so it must be true. In my mind it’s several discussions- where it was unanimous- then you can state were the jury correct and what evidence has since come to light that may conflict with this decision. Where the jury wasn’t unanimous then you could argue some of the jury were correct, but some were also incorrect and that is a whole other conversation. It obviously varies on which child you look at and the verdict.
There was sub optimal care everywhere in the unit sadly- it was in the external reports done at the time, its apparent in the Thirlwall inquiry- one thing I would almost guarantee is even if LL has a retrial and is found guilty again, the Thirlwall Inquiry will highlight the poor care that was happening in the unit at every level.

 

[Ruthbullock]

BBM for emphasis.

So if it’s not the staff and they are capable- why transport them at all, all units would surely be levelled the same and babies left where they are born. They had the cots, they had the equipment, and according to you they had the appropriately trained staff- that doesn’t make sense. They had to transfer the babies as the staff weren’t qualified, that’s just the reality. The most experienced, specialist staff were located at the main units, not the tertiary units. Whilst the babies weren’t always stable enough to transport, as in the case of at least one baby discussed in the Thirlwall inquiry they did have a response team who would travel to the COCH to support.

 

[Ruthbullock]

I also want to add that the decision about whether or not to transport Baby Ks mother prenatally would have been multidisciplinary and possibly even multihospital. In the link to the retrial that I posted above, an OB testifies about the decision to keep Baby Ks mother at Chester. It involves the concern that she might deliver outside of a hospital. The jury heard the argument that Baby K "shouldn't have been born at Chester" and judged that it was irrelevant to the attempted murder charge.

But they did have to ring Dr J, who was at home and on call to attend the birth of baby K. They knew this was a mother who they kept at COCH as she was too fragile to transfer, but the Doctor on shift stayed at home and just said ring me when she delivers. He was, as he stated within the 30 minute driving allowance- what if there had been an issue with such an unusual and vulnerable patient in less than the 30 minutes. Where were the qualified staff on shift at the hospital when they had this knowledge about a vulnerable patient?

 

[Ruthbullock]

Speaking of women. There are plenty of mothers, whose children died, under Letby’s care, who are also having their voices stifled….IMO

Who do you think is stifling them and why?

 

[Ruthbullock]

This needs no real comment, I have friends who have left their roles in SCBU due to this case, and they aren’t alone. Our NHS is going to implode without this being truly picked apart

Hundreds of healthcare workers demand review into Letby conviction

Nurses, doctors and psychiatrists ask unions to ‘stand with us’ to protect NHS staff from allegations of wrongdoing

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

So if it’s not the staff and they are capable- why transport them at all, all units would surely be levelled the same and babies left where they are born. They had the cots, they had the equipment, and according to you they had the appropriately trained staff- that doesn’t make sense. They had to transfer the babies as the staff weren’t qualified, that’s just the reality. The most experienced, specialist staff were located at the main units, not the tertiary units. Whilst the babies weren’t always stable enough to transport, as in the case of at least one baby discussed in the Thirlwall inquiry they did have a response team who would travel to the COCH to support.

Yes - the staff at CoCh were trained to stabilize. That was an appropriate use of the unit - to stabilize a baby who could not be transported prenatally. And then the transport system was used appropriately. This isn't a gotcha.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

But they did have to ring Dr J, who was at home and on call to attend the birth of baby K. They knew this was a mother who they kept at COCH as she was too fragile to transfer, but the Doctor on shift stayed at home and just said ring me when she delivers. He was, as he stated within the 30 minute driving allowance- what if there had been an issue with such an unusual and vulnerable patient in less than the 30 minutes. Where were the qualified staff on shift at the hospital when they had this knowledge about a vulnerable patient?

He was at the delivery. The system worked as it should have.

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

I think you should go back and read @Furore 's post about "post code lotteries." All the things you think are failings are in fact just real life at work. I'm saying that not as a nurse but as a parent whose baby died of a freak birth injury that occurred in a not ideal place due to plain old bad luck. (ETA) $&%$ happens. Might be ideal to have a bed in hospital X but the only one open is at hospital Y. Good thing the staff there can intubate; csn place lines have, and have a ventilator and a double walled incubator. What should NOT happen is murder over and over. JMO.

 

[Sweeper2000]

lots of love magi

 

[Furore]

But they did have to ring Dr J, who was at home and on call to attend the birth of baby K. They knew this was a mother who they kept at COCH as she was too fragile to transfer, but the Doctor on shift stayed at home and just said ring me when she delivers. He was, as he stated within the 30 minute driving allowance- what if there had been an issue with such an unusual and vulnerable patient in less than the 30 minutes. Where were the qualified staff on shift at the hospital when they had this knowledge about a vulnerable patient?

I think it feels like there is a disconnect between your expectation and reality. Rotas are staffed to be on call - you can’t sit in a hospital for 72 hours if covering a weekend on call, just in case something happens? You know it is notoriously unpredictable when babies come right? It’s universal that consultant doctors are within thirty mins of base hospital for on calls - human beings cannot do 24/7 - there are constantly vulnerable patients present in hospitals. In the 1950’s doctors had to take cocaine to manage the rotas - care was less safe, less caring, and less complicated! It’s actually also not the case in general that you need consultants for the acute emergency bit - airway breathing circulation to stabilise human physiology is incredibly standardised and there is always someone resident to do this. Consultants are utilised for nuance and expertise, direction of travel, and unusual complexities - their advice is always immediate even if their physical hands aren’t!

“Sitting at home” is not a reflection of how non resident on call periods work in the UK.

I respect all people and try and understand the opinion of others, but when numerous people with real world and professional experience are telling you that this particular interpretation of care and safety is wrong, please consider listening or broadening horizons? All respectfully and JMO.

 

[Charlot123]

But they did have to ring Dr J, who was at home and on call to attend the birth of baby K. They knew this was a mother who they kept at COCH as she was too fragile to transfer, but the Doctor on shift stayed at home and just said ring me when she delivers. He was, as he stated within the 30 minute driving allowance- what if there had been an issue with such an unusual and vulnerable patient in less than the 30 minutes. Where were the qualified staff on shift at the hospital when they had this knowledge about a vulnerable patient?

I have only one question at this point, and it is a financial one.

Is there any financial bonus to keep the level that fits level 3 acuity at a higher level, level 2? Is there a special grant to the hospital or the staff at the unit? Maybe, including the nurses?

It sounds like all people were overwhelmed there. And, especially the nurses, they probably could have found level 3 NICU unit but they stayed. Meaning, there should have been a financial incentive to work at level 2, as opposed to level 3?

Or maybe there was no incentive, but in the absence of competition (not enough staff), a nurse could sooner grow up to the next band level?

Same with the doctors. I can only guess how doctors are paid in UK. There may be a "base salary" for being on call at home plus additional "bonus" when you show up on the unit after a baby is admitted to NICU, for example. Then some nights are difficult, and some, easy. (That could explain doing rounds twice a week and then showing up in the case of an emergency. This can explain why a doctor can be late, because emergencies are random). Or were these the nights when the seniors had to be physically present on the unit, and paid at a higher rate, but chose to go home (i assume, home being in the vicinity), leaving the registrars to take care of the unit, unless there was an emergency?

Or maybe they were not incentivised at all? That could explain why Dr. Gibbs saw baby C only in 72 hours (heavy job, burnout, and then there is no extra reward for working extra?)

All I see as the result of the story is that the job was hard, the staff, overwhelmed, yet no one wanted to downgrade the level to the one that would fit their qualification. That means that financially, there was some bonus to keep it a level above?

Not trying to accuse anyone of anything by this post.

Living in a very socialized system of USSR had shown me that even a totaly de-incentivizing system of "equal distribution" still generated people who were actively looking for bonuses or fringe benefits. People may be less or more ambitious, but if they keep working in a struggling place, there must be a financial reason to do so.

So I assume that Lucy's tragedy lied in trying to earn more and picking up more shifts so that statistically it started working against her (although it is poor statistics.)

But surely there were other reasons, for other staff, maybe medical directors and CEOs to keep the unit above the people's competence (level 2)?

Perhaps we are seeing a tragedy at all levels, in a way?

 

[magikarpmagikarp]

lots of love magi

Thanks, Sweeper

 

[Parker Knoll]

Yes from me too Magi X

 

[joltz]

It doesn’t matter how people respond to your final question as it would not be the response you want, but to attempt a sensible discussion- the jury made their decision based on the evidence that was presented and how it was presented- we all know that is how a trial works. I have no idea how strongly each juror felt, or what arguments helped them make their decisions so I can’t say whether they were right or wrong. In some of the cases the jury couldn’t agree- so to argue that the jury was right, we are unable to say, was the juror who strongly felt not guilty even as a lone person who went against everyone else in the room, or was the majority who perhaps had a herd mentality right- we don’t know. That is why it is so impossible to have a logical discussion when the default response is the jury said so, so it must be true. In my mind it’s several discussions- where it was unanimous- then you can state were the jury correct and what evidence has since come to light that may conflict with this decision. Where the jury wasn’t unanimous then you could argue some of the jury were correct, but some were also incorrect and that is a whole other conversation. It obviously varies on which child you look at and the verdict.
There was sub optimal care everywhere in the unit sadly- it was in the external reports done at the time, its apparent in the Thirlwall inquiry- one thing I would almost guarantee is even if LL has a retrial and is found guilty again, the Thirlwall Inquiry will highlight the poor care that was happening in the unit at every level.

Well we know that each and every one of the jurors had Letby down as a baby murderer. They unanimously convicted her of murder.

 

[marynnu]

So if it’s not the staff and they are capable- why transport them at all, all units would surely be levelled the same and babies left where they are born. They had the cots, they had the equipment, and according to you they had the appropriately trained staff- that doesn’t make sense. They had to transfer the babies as the staff weren’t qualified, that’s just the reality. The most experienced, specialist staff were located at the main units, not the tertiary units. Whilst the babies weren’t always stable enough to transport, as in the case of at least one baby discussed in the Thirlwall inquiry they did have a response team who would travel to the COCH to support.

You are completely wrong. It was decided about 20 years ago to centralise care in just a few regional units. The rationale being that the more experience people have of caring for extreme prems the more adept they will become & the outcomes will be better. Whether that is the case I have no idea. These units might also have more sophisticated equipment. But it is no reflection on the staff on the referring unit, who of course are qualified.