Dogs Sleeping Forum

Dimples wrote:

Cannydc wrote:You forgot the premise of the question.

Your beloved has died during or just after surgery, and you discover the surgeon was basically incompetent and yet allowed to operate with the full knowledge of the hospital, who had full access to those league tables.

Personally, I would pay for a PM myself, wouldn't you ?

I would like you to tell me how you "discover" whether the surgeon was "basically incompetent" or not. On what basis do you make that determination?

Describe to me the steps you would take in determining the competence of a surgeon if you were not present the during surgery...

You have fallen into a trap of your own construction. These league tables do not measure or indicate levels of surgical competence. They indicate levels of patient mortality.

Cannydc wrote:You forgot the premise of the question.

Your beloved has died during or just after surgery, and you discover the surgeon was basically incompetent and yet allowed to operate with the full knowledge of the hospital, who had full access to those league tables.

Personally, I would pay for a PM myself, wouldn't you ?

Dimples wrote:

Cannydc wrote:The inquest should cover that.

However, prior to the inquest, you would be asking questions.

And I also wonder if the inquest would be dismissed as a cover-up if no misdeeds were unearthed.

What inquest?

Do you imagine that an inquest takes place every time a patient dies after undergoing surgery? The Coroner or PF has to be informed if the patient died during surgery or before recovery from general anaesthetic or if the death is unexplained. i.e. there is no obvious cause of death in an otherwise healthy individual.

An inquest would only be requested if the cause of death was still unknown following a PM.

Dimples wrote:

Cannydc wrote:The inquest should cover that.

However, prior to the inquest, you would be asking questions.

And I also wonder if the inquest would be dismissed as a cover-up if no misdeeds were unearthed.

What inquest?

Do you imagine that an inquest takes place every time a patient dies after undergoing surgery? The Coroner or PF has to be informed if the patient died during surgery or before recovery from general anaesthetic or if the death is unexplained. i.e. there is no obvious cause of death in an otherwise healthy individual.

An inquest would only be requested if the cause of death was still unknown following a PM.

Cannydc wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:

LordRaven wrote:Just three surgeons named as having high death rates
New data comparing death rates of 5,000 surgeons identifies just three with death rates higher than they should

Just three surgeons have been named as performing more poorly than they should be under new data comparing the death rates of 5,000 surgeons in England.
Data published today on a central NHS website has been hailed as part of a “world leading transparency drive”.
The figures show that almost every surgeon in the country has been found to be operating within “the expected range” of performance.
NHS England said the findings should reassure the public.
But critics questioned whether the limits were set too widely, allowing surgeons to be labelled as “okay” when their performance was worryingly poor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/1 ... rates.html

This is bonkers! Now people will refuse to have them operate on them

For once i agree with you.
It's bonkers!

I keep saying the ramifications of this ill thought out policy will cause deaths from people refusing to be operated on by certain surgeons and also certain surgeons refusing to operate "so as not to ruin their league position"

It is mental

It is noted that neither of you have answered the simple question.....How would you feel and react to being told AFTER surgery on your mum, daughter, son, husband, wife which concluded in them dying that the surgeon concerned was well below the general standards of similar surgeons operating on similar patients - in fact bottom of the league with well above average fatalities, and due to be retrained urgently ?

Would you just shrug your shoulders and say 'oh well, never mind' as you shake his hand and thank him for trying ?

Let me guess.....

Cannydc wrote:The inquest should cover that.

However, prior to the inquest, you would be asking questions.

And I also wonder if the inquest would be dismissed as a cover-up if no misdeeds were unearthed.

Cannydc wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:

LordRaven wrote:Just three surgeons named as having high death rates
New data comparing death rates of 5,000 surgeons identifies just three with death rates higher than they should

Just three surgeons have been named as performing more poorly than they should be under new data comparing the death rates of 5,000 surgeons in England.
Data published today on a central NHS website has been hailed as part of a “world leading transparency drive”.
The figures show that almost every surgeon in the country has been found to be operating within “the expected range” of performance.
NHS England said the findings should reassure the public.
But critics questioned whether the limits were set too widely, allowing surgeons to be labelled as “okay” when their performance was worryingly poor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/1 ... rates.html

This is bonkers! Now people will refuse to have them operate on them

For once i agree with you.
It's bonkers!

I keep saying the ramifications of this ill thought out policy will cause deaths from people refusing to be operated on by certain surgeons and also certain surgeons refusing to operate "so as not to ruin their league position"

It is mental

It is noted that neither of you have answered the simple question.....How would you feel and react to being told AFTER surgery on your mum, daughter, son, husband, wife which concluded in them dying that the surgeon concerned was well below the general standards of similar surgeons operating on similar patients - in fact bottom of the league with well above average fatalities, and due to be retrained urgently ?

Would you just shrug your shoulders and say 'oh well, never mind' as you shake his hand and thank him for trying ?

Let me guess.....

LordRaven wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:

LordRaven wrote:Just three surgeons named as having high death rates
New data comparing death rates of 5,000 surgeons identifies just three with death rates higher than they should

Just three surgeons have been named as performing more poorly than they should be under new data comparing the death rates of 5,000 surgeons in England.
Data published today on a central NHS website has been hailed as part of a “world leading transparency drive”.
The figures show that almost every surgeon in the country has been found to be operating within “the expected range” of performance.
NHS England said the findings should reassure the public.
But critics questioned whether the limits were set too widely, allowing surgeons to be labelled as “okay” when their performance was worryingly poor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/1 ... rates.html

This is bonkers! Now people will refuse to have them operate on them

For once i agree with you.
It's bonkers!

I keep saying the ramifications of this ill thought out policy will cause deaths from people refusing to be operated on by certain surgeons and also certain surgeons refusing to operate "so as not to ruin their league position"

It is mental

Aziz wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Aziz wrote:You're asking us to believe that from 1982 until 1997 at the earliest - a period of at least 15 years - that you hadn't heard of the BNP. Nor presumably had your black mate, your brown mate, your Arab friends, the countless "dusky maidens" you bedded or the rest of your contacts in the UN that you have yet to mention. Bollox!

Yes that is correct, I had not heard of the BNP and/or had no wish to until such time as the Labour Party opted to give them enormous amounts of press coverage.
n.b. I don't lie, you just TROLL along behind my every post saying I do because of your butthurt ego, get it right.

Please stop.

LordRaven wrote:

Aziz wrote:You're asking us to believe that from 1982 until 1997 at the earliest - a period of at least 15 years - that you hadn't heard of the BNP. Nor presumably had your black mate, your brown mate, your Arab friends, the countless "dusky maidens" you bedded or the rest of your contacts in the UN that you have yet to mention. Bollox!

Yes that is correct, I had not heard of the BNP and/or had no wish to until such time as the Labour Party opted to give them enormous amounts of press coverage.
n.b. I don't lie, you just TROLL along behind my every post saying I do because of your butthurt ego, get it right.

Aziz wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Aziz wrote:

LordRaven wrote:
You wouldn't know "truly" if you slept with it - and fortunately there's a discussion on another forum which explodes this lie of yours - but I'm busy right now so I will wait for a more opportune time.

Every single time I post you TROLL along behind me with SSDD untruths? You really are a non-contributing TROLL puppy dog following me around aren't you?
Your butthurt is palpable, please carry on as it amuses me seeing you be a pointless entity with no worth to the actual thread topic.
If it amuses you as one of your only sources of joy in life be my guest

It's clear you haven't the ability to decide one way or the other on the thread subject so just carry on being an arse

Not so Raven, only the posts in which lie - well yes, I suppose that is most of them. Let's look at this latest porker shall we?

You're asking us to believe that from 1982 until 1997 at the earliest - a period of at least 15 years - that you hadn't heard of the BNP. Nor presumably had your black mate, your brown mate, your Arab friends, the countless "dusky maidens" you bedded or the rest of your contacts in the UN that you have yet to mention. Bollox!

Dimples wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Dimples wrote:

LordRaven wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:
For once i agree with you.
It's bonkers!

I keep saying the ramifications of this ill thought out policy will cause deaths from people refusing to be operated on by certain surgeons and also certain surgeons refusing to operate "so as not to ruin their league position"

It is mental

To be honest, I'm not sure that NHS patients generally tend to refuse to be looked after by particular surgeons (although there is no rule which says that they cannot) for most types of care. It might have an impact upon a surgeon's private practice though, where self-funding patients can pick and choose a bit more.

You raise yet another good additional point to those I mentioned above, those with money will clearly be willing to pay for the "League Leaders" to operate on them and that means "lots more well paid private work and the NHS poor will suffer accordingly"

The people on here who back this madness are seriously not thinking this through.

Hang on though... that's not necessarily the case. Not all surgeons undertake private practice for a start, so it doesn't necessarily follow that those who do are the league leaders anyway.

Who are those whom you describe as "the NHS poor" and why would they suffer if some surgeons are also doing private practice?