Floss
Well-Known Forumite
Too true, it's barbaric no better than a snuff movie watching someone die so slowly and painfully, they should bring in euthinasia!
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Support Stafford Hospital
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Too true, it's barbaric no better than a snuff movie watching someone die so slowly and painfully, they should bring in euthinasia!
Glam
Mad Cat Woman
We had a patient on this about a year ago, i'd never heard of it before, and we've never had to use it since. At the time of starting, he had been refusing all diet and fluids for a couple of days, sub cut fluids was about to be administered, but it was decided that he was so close to death, that it wouldn't have helped. Within an hour tops of commencing the LPC, he died. So it really is "the last thing". And before anyone starts on at me, i'm not saying I agree with it, I don't fully understand it, I just work at the hospital, i'm not a qualified nurse. But I wouldn't have been happy if it had been one of my parents in the gentlemans position.
PeterD
ST16 Represent.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Darren
Well-Known Forumite
UK people may know of the bad press Stafford Hospital has had over the last year or more but my mum was taken in to the hospital on Saturday and passed away Sunday, the hospital were very caring they made my mum as comfortable as possible and treat her with the dignity she deserved.
thank you to all the staff involved
Rest in peace mum.
thank you to all the staff involved
Rest in peace mum.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Commissioning
Funding
Budgets
Allocation
Services
Administration
Conservative
Party
Policy
Patients? WTF? Don't start stirring it sunny!!
Funding
Budgets
Allocation
Services
Administration
Conservative
Party
Policy
Patients? WTF? Don't start stirring it sunny!!
PeterD
ST16 Represent.
And with all due respect, what does that mean. Edited version.
You know what bollocks to this, such a prickish statement and show how one sided and deluded people are if not in stafford certainly on this forum. Do not ever accuse me of being a farking holocaust denier.
feck this.
peggy
Well-Known Forumite
maybe this thread has lost its way a little, it is after all titled "support stafford hospital" therfore should it focus more on the positives and a "damn stafford hospital" thread could be created for those who wish to share the negatives they or their loved ones have experienced (or indeed have heard about in the accurately and non sensationalised press.) That way the two worlds shouldnt collide. Just a thought.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
I've had the misfortune to be witness to two of your so called imaginary unnecessary deaths at Stafford so I know for a FACT that anyone claiming it did not happen is talking shit. I'd seriously hope the total is not as high as the headlines claim but who really knows, and I doubt we will ever find out.
As for a prickish statement, well I quoted the link you had posted up and had intended it to apply to the author of that. However if you seriously believe what he has written then you need to have a long, hard think about yourself. And careful you don't hurt yourself when falling from your high horse.
Whatever we want regarding the hospital now (and I'd hope most people would want it to survive, keep on improving and become a top class medical facility) it's pointless trying to rewrite history and pretend nothing ever happened in the past.
skwalker1964
Active Member
I'm the author of the thread, John, and your comment is as offensive to me as it was to Peter. Every hospital has 'unnecessary' deaths whether it's in the NHS or a private one. No hospital is perfect, because it's staffed by people and people are fallible.
My article was about the supposed 'excess' death toll in the statistics - the idea that Mid Staffs was worse than other places and that a huge (but strangely very vague - 400-1200 is a massive range of uncertainty) number of people died there as a result of care failings. There is no evidence to support that, and both Francis reports specifically said that the numbers should not be used to extrapolate numbers of 'excess' deaths - yet Cure the NHS, the Tories and the media are still queuing up to state '400-1200 unnecessary deaths!' as fact. It just didn't happen - but saying it did is useful: politically to the Tories and media, and emotionally to CtN campaigners.
To decide whether a death was avoidable requires a detailed review of the case notes. When local families were invited to ask for a casenote review, only 60 came forward - that immediately makes even the lower end of the headline numbers extremely doubtful.
Of those 60 cases, the independent doctor in charge of the review found 'perhaps one' that he felt was attributable to what the HSMR statistics were thought to have identified.
My sympathies go to anyone who lost a relative at Mid Staffs. I've been 'there' and I know what it feels like. But grieving people rarely see straight - and they're certainly not the best basis for policy.
If you want to read the article properly and argue with what I've actually said rather than set up straw men, then I'll do my best to engage.
My article was about the supposed 'excess' death toll in the statistics - the idea that Mid Staffs was worse than other places and that a huge (but strangely very vague - 400-1200 is a massive range of uncertainty) number of people died there as a result of care failings. There is no evidence to support that, and both Francis reports specifically said that the numbers should not be used to extrapolate numbers of 'excess' deaths - yet Cure the NHS, the Tories and the media are still queuing up to state '400-1200 unnecessary deaths!' as fact. It just didn't happen - but saying it did is useful: politically to the Tories and media, and emotionally to CtN campaigners.
To decide whether a death was avoidable requires a detailed review of the case notes. When local families were invited to ask for a casenote review, only 60 came forward - that immediately makes even the lower end of the headline numbers extremely doubtful.
Of those 60 cases, the independent doctor in charge of the review found 'perhaps one' that he felt was attributable to what the HSMR statistics were thought to have identified.
My sympathies go to anyone who lost a relative at Mid Staffs. I've been 'there' and I know what it feels like. But grieving people rarely see straight - and they're certainly not the best basis for policy.
If you want to read the article properly and argue with what I've actually said rather than set up straw men, then I'll do my best to engage.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Interesting that you should be outraged that I have offended you but it matters not that you might have offended me. Ho hum...
skwalker1964
Active Member
Quite! I'm also curious about:
- What I'm supposed to have said that might have offended him, since that's the first message I've ever addressed to him and nothing in it is personal.
- Where in my message I said I think it doesn't matter if I did offend him
skwalker1964
Active Member
Oh, and also where I said I was 'outraged' about it rather than merely offended.
Classic straw-man stuff.
Classic straw-man stuff.