Anyone ever had need to sue a hospital?

Read how it works here

www.nhsla.com/Claims/Schemes/CNST

 

I'm impressed you allowed her to look up long enough to say that

 

Hog said:

yep, like i said, the cnst is basically where the nhs contributors look
at which nhs institutions have been the most sued in a set time period
then compare that and their costs across the board.

then they come to a "premium" that each has to pay based on risk

they pay it

if their costs of being sued / payouts decreases do does their premium
and vice versa.

as i say all internal and effectively the systems based on the fact
that they are putting money to one side because they already know how
many **** ups their organisations made and roughly how much they think
it will cost :-/

 

Wrong. Mistakes in the true sense are a lot more common than
negligence.

And what is the annual payment to the CNST if not an insurance
premium?

You would never sue just the doctor.

 

It's the one consumer durable you can't return, unfortunately.

 

After too many years of drunken incompetents telling people to, "Take
two asprin and call me next week, I'm late for the races, begod", [1]
the Irish medical authorities have introduced a compulsory scheme
whereby every GP has to undergo a fairly stiff re-test every five years
or so.

[1] The vast majority of GPs are pretty good, but it doesn't take many
bad'uns to **** things up.

 

you seem to have described the mechanism known as insurance

 

wessie said:

yes, however, the point im trying to make is that in the nhs its
insurance through nepotism and effectively non regulated.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, ogden

Yebbut...

Oh, let's not go there.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

I have already made the greatest contribution to the fight against climate
change that I can make: I have decided not to breed. Now quit bugging me and
go and talk to the Catholics.

 

september.org:

how does that differ to the poorly regulated general insurance market?

 

Right, wasn't aware of that, just that he#s trying to reform the system. It
still seems like he's having an uphill struggle though.

There are still millions of Septics without insurance though and I can't
imagine them all running around in gas guzzlers. Then again...

Seems reasonable on the face of it.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

And if that has *anything* to do with medical negligence (or anything
medical at all for that matter), I'll show my arse. Getting a blowjob on
company time will almost always result in a firing of one kind or another if
only because of jealousy.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Actually, you *can* return it, but the wimmin seem to get a bit pissed off
when you're trying, but leave it a few years and it'll try getting back on
its own.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

"Had an accident that wasn't your fault within the last 3 years"?

You don't watch enough shite telly Nige.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Hi Donnie.

We are applying for copies of the records. £50 well spent. Then
hopefully we will see more. It maybe that Jan won't want to read them
in detail, but it will be fascinating to me! At the moment no one, not
even the cardiologist, seems to know what it was used for during the
op.

From Janet, as a representtive of all of those who helped her, thanks.

As I expected. Our main question at the moment is "will this wire
cause future problems?" A cardiologist says not, but is it arse
covering?

Oh yes, Janet spent a lot of time having intravenous feed. But why
would this need a wire running from the leg to the neck and through
the heart inside her?

As I said, copies of records first. Then shouting otherwise a relevant
bit might go missing.

From someone who's (was?) at the sharp end a damning statement.

 

Lucky you!

But what, in law, is the difference between the two? TOG's man can
advise, of course.

Noted, thanks.

Not writing to a solicitor yet. As I said, it's only a few days since
finding out and getting Janets heart sorted is higher priority. We're
just guaging our choices.

Not yet, but I'll keep it in advisement should the need arise. Many
thanks for the offer.

She's not dead yet!

 

Ooh, more reading.

 

LOL, you ain't wrong! We tried a couple of weeks ago but she's all
dried up and sore. Too much information for some I'm sure! Have you
got a daughter living in the area?

 

Nice!

 

It depends on where the profit is - drug companies fund development of
new drugs out of profits so no profits == no new drugs.

And for every drug that does come onto the markets (and a large
proportion of the cost is the regulatory process) there are hundreds of
thousands of compounds that have been rejected during the process.
Which is why new drug development takes so much money.

It would end up the same as in the vetinary world - animals that do
have insurance end up having more (and more expensive) treatment than
they generally need 'because the insurance will pay for it'.

Phil