Optometrist spared jail

[Solomon1]

I don't know specifically about the case in question, but it is possible that the boy also didn't present with any other symptoms

 

Well duh

 

Obviously!

[Robin-H]

Well duh

 

Obviously!

 

If that is so obvious to you why in a previous post made only minutes ago did you say..

 

Was why this person had [sic] been singled out to blame

 

When the child had died 5 months later

 

Presumably, displaying symptoms

 

Some considerable time beforehand

 

Are you talking about a different case, or do you now accept that it is possible he didn't show other symptoms. I'm confused?

[Solomon1]

I'm confused?

 

A completely normal child presented for a routine eye exam

 

For some reason (as yet unclear to me) the optomotrist

 

Did not look at his discs

 

In her 5 minute consultation

 

Along with the 30 (?) other people

 

She would have seen that day

 

The child in question died 5 months later from cerebral oedema

 

Which someone is now blaming on this optomotrist

 

Who had seen him 5 months previously

 

Which seems pretty harsh to me

 

As the child would have been examined

 

For a spectacle fitting

 

And not brain disease

 

And surely presented with other symptoms

 

To other health professionals subsequently

 

Is that clearer for you Robin H?

[Robin-H]

A completely normal child presented for a routine eye exam

 

For some reason (as yet unclear to me) the optomotrist

 

Did not look at his discs

 

In her 5 minute consultation

 

Along with the 30 (?) other people

 

She would have seen that day

 

The child in question died 5 months later from cerebral oedema

 

Which someone is now blaming on this optomotrist

 

Who had seen him 5 months previously

 

Which seems pretty harsh to me

 

As the child would have been examined

 

For a spectacle fitting

 

And not brain disease

 

And surely presented with other symptoms

 

To other health professionals subsequently

 

Is that clearer for you Robin H?

 

Yes that is what I thought you meant originally.

 

Which is why I explained that you can have swollen optic disks and not present other symptoms (like I did). You then said 'Well duh...Obviously!', as if you thought it was obvious you can not present other symptoms.

 

Now you are claiming again that he would have presented other symptoms, hence my confusion.

 

It is not harsh that she was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. It is the law.

[redfox]

A completely normal child presented for a routine eye exam

 

For some reason (as yet unclear to me) the optomotrist

 

Did not look at his discs

 

In her 5 minute consultation

 

Along with the 30 (?) other people

 

She would have seen that day

 

The child in question died 5 months later from cerebral oedema

 

Which someone is now blaming on this optomotrist

 

Who had seen him 5 months previously

 

Which seems pretty harsh to me

 

As the child would have been examined

 

For a spectacle fitting

 

And not brain disease

 

And surely presented with other symptoms

 

To other health professionals subsequently

 

Is that clearer for you Robin H?

 

 

 

 

 

Sol - the whole point of the prosecution was that she would only have had to look at the discs to spot the very serious problem - she did not and tried to lie her way out of it (I think the Judge commented as much in his sentencing remarks)

 

If she had spotted it then she acknowledged that she would have made a referral on to hospital - her gross negligence meant she failed to spot it, and it was not identified quickly - Any other professional in her position should have spotted it and done something about it.

 

All the medics I know are well aware of the issue of gross negligence and in the profession they are in if you make a serious error the consequences are severe and if a child, as in this case, dies when they were examined but a few months before then the investigation that follows will pick that up.

 

The fact there are so few prosecutions, is perhaps an indicator that such clear cut evidence is not always available to launch a prosecution.

[ANGELFIRE1]

So if a gas fitter makes a balls up of fitting your boiler and your house explodes would you chalk that up to "bad things sometimes happen"?

 

 

Much respect to gas fitters, but it can hardly be classed in the same league as an optometrist. It's like comparing apples and brain surgery.

 

Angel1.

[redfox]

Much respect to gas fitters, but it can hardly be classed in the same league as an optometrist. It's like comparing apples and brain surgery.

 

Angel1.

 

It may well be - the consequences of a balls up are the same.

 

Plenty of "gas fitters" been prosecuted successfully.

[tinfoilhat]

It may well be - the consequences of a balls up are the same.

 

Plenty of "gas fitters" been prosecuted successfully.

 

As they've managed to kill people due to bodging/incompetence. I can't see how Angel can't see the similarities - it's not like she was lacking in equipment.

[Solomon1]

Sol - the whole point of the prosecution was that she would only have had to look at the discs to spot the very serious problem - she did not and tried to lie her way out of it (I think the Judge commented as much in his sentencing remarks)

 

Life is never black and white though red

 

So my questions remain....

 

Why were the discs not looked at?

 

Was she time-pressured? Filling in for a colleague? Unwell?

 

Last minute appointment? Hyperactive child?

 

Missed discs takes seconds, especially with a distracted mind

 

But why were they not seen AT ALL?

 

Miscommunication? Error from colleagues?

 

Usually failures are system failures or a person's mistake

 

If it was a system failure, why is she being blamed?

 

If it was her genuine mistake (again this is still unclear to me)

 

A death 5 months later, cannot be blamed on her

 

Unless someone HAS to be blamed for this

 

In which case, there you go

[redfox]

Life is never black and white though red

 

So my questions remain....

 

Why were the discs not looked at?

 

Was she time-pressured? Filling in for a colleague? Unwell?

 

Last minute appointment? Hyperactive child?

 

Missed discs takes seconds, especially with a distracted mind

 

But why were they not seen AT ALL?

 

Miscommunication? Error from colleagues?

 

Usually failures are system failures or a person's mistake

 

If it was a system failure, why is she being blamed?

 

If it was her genuine mistake (again this is still unclear to me)

 

A death 5 months later, cannot be blamed on her

 

Unless someone HAS to be blamed for this

 

In which case, there you go

 

 

 

Unless you sat through the evidence you nor I cannot know exactly why she did not look at the discs - I think she claimed the boy reacted badly to the examination but the mothers evidence contradicted that as I understand it.

A death 5 months, 5 years later if directly attributable and causative of the death as a result of the the omission of the person (or act of an individual - case ongoing in Sheffield at the moment as a consequence of a death years after an attack by domestic partner - charged as murder) most certainly can be blamed on the person responsible for the act of omission.