andyofborg Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Life is never black and white though red So my questions remain.... Why were the discs not looked at? try reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/15/optometrist-honey-rose-guilty-manslaughter-negligence-vinnie-barker-boots in particular: The jury heard photographs taken by another member of staff of the back of his eyes shortly before he was examined by Rose suggested he had bilateral papilloedema – the optic disc at the back of each eye was swollen because of the raised pressure within his skull. if the photographs really showed that then there is no excuse for doing a proper examination of the back of the eye. even if photographs hadn't been taken then there is still no excuse not to look at the back of the eye. Was she time-pressured? Filling in for a colleague? Unwell? Last minute appointment? Hyperactive child? Missed discs takes seconds, especially with a distracted mind if you're mind is distracted then you have no business examining someones eyes if you are a trained professional then there is no excuse for missing swollen optical discs. If it was her genuine mistake (again this is still unclear to me) A death 5 months later, cannot be blamed on her what killed this poor child has very few visible symptoms until it's too late, had the defendant done her job properly then the child should have been sent to hospital for further investigation. she didn't and an opportunity to save the child's life was missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 The jury heard photographs taken by another member of staff OK Bingo So someone else saw the discs? So why is SHE getting the blame then? I knew there was something very strange about this story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 OK Bingo So someone else saw the discs? So why is SHE getting the blame then? I knew there was something very strange about this story Sol - I don't think there is anything strange about it - we just don't know the evidence do we? I will try and get the sentencing comments which may help but the media reports of criminal cases are invariably snippets of the most salacious bits of the evidence and often inaccurately reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 OK Bingo So someone else saw the discs? So why is SHE getting the blame then? I knew there was something very strange about this story my word , are you Sheffields answer to Columbo ? is there nothing you cannot work out ? from Jeremy corbyn winning a general election to investigating some poor souls untimely death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Just a thought... In a lot of professions and industries, there are systems of checking in place, so that if one person gets it wrong, there is the opportunity for this to be picked up. Agreed. I've also noticed that on a couple of recent occasions where I have had to attend A&E, with children, that they were seen by a series of different doctors, going through similar routines and asking similar questions. I don't know whether this is to provide a check, and/or just part of training, but either way it provides a check of any assessment. I mentioned Specsavers in a couple of earlier posts and they have something similar, where a senior optician will always complete a final check on any younger children's spectacles before the customer is discharged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 OK Bingo So someone else saw the discs? So why is SHE getting the blame then? I knew there was something very strange about this story Quick I think you need to ring the judge! Clearly you have more knowledge and experience than the people who convicted her. It is not strange at all. I don't know but one possibility is that the photos were taken by someone else who wasn't a qualified optometrist so that she, the qualified person, could take a look at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 Sol - I don't think there is anything strange about it - we just don't know the evidence do we? I will try and get the sentencing comments which may help but the media reports of criminal cases are invariably snippets of the most salacious bits of the evidence and often inaccurately reported. I think this is my main issue Which is why it didn't seem to add up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I think this is my main issue Which is why it didn't seem to add up! I'm not sure what bits didn't seem to add up, it seemed quite straight forward to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I don't know but one possibility is that the photos were taken by someone else who wasn't a qualified optometrist so that she, the qualified person, could take a look at them So why did she not see the photos? Were they ever presented to her? Did she know how to access them from the office computer? As a locum, did she know such protocols? ---------- Post added 29-08-2016 at 21:21 ---------- I'm not sure what bits didn't seem to add up, it seemed quite straight forward to me? Well, it did not to me Robin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 So why did she not see the photos? Were they ever presented to her? Did she know how to access them from the office computer? As a locum, did she know such protocols? ---------- Post added 29-08-2016 at 21:21 ---------- Well, it did not to me Robin \ Because she was being grossly negligent. That's why she was convicted. The fact of the matter is she was found guilty by people who had all the information. I don't see what it served by hypothesising about things we know very little about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now