4 thoughts on “My campaign is bearing fruit.”

1. ““It is important that there is reasonable compensation for patients harmed following clinical negligence”

   Is it? No sorry, still not convinced and as soon as I hear the phrase ‘agreed by an expert group ‘ alarm bells start ringing. Pretty sure this is merely a pre-emptive move by the MPS which seeks to underlined how ‘important’ the idea of Med Neg Compo is to society and….

   …their own bottom line.

   Like

2. I was unaware that compensation was to cover private care costs although it seems that is rarely used until you mentioned it, that seems wrong and I doubt most of the general public are aware of this. Also wrong that payment cannot be recovered when no longer needed, I can’t understand that at all. I remember a case where the child died not long after a huge award and the parents were allowed to keep the compensation, I think it went to court. Glad you are still making your presence felt Anna. Miss your blogs and you are always in my thoughts.
   Carol 42 xx

   Liked by 1 person

3. The piece of legislation that dictates that care costs were calculated on the basis of private care costs, pre-dates the origins of the NHS in 1948. I other words, it was written at a time when there was no NHS and therefore assumed that patients ‘damaged’ by a Doctor would have to fund this future care privately. It has never been repealed.
   Re: your comments about a child dying and the parents keeping the award – of course – the award was made to the child and therefore becomes thier ‘property’. When the child dies, or anyone else who has had an award, the money goes into thier estate and onto to the cat’s home, or a charity, or the Monster Raving Looney Party – whoever they have made thier will out to. In the case of a child, they wouldn’t have made a will, so the money goes to thier next of kin.
   Please excsue my typing and spelling, I can barely see the letters.

   Like

4. My view is different for the two heads of damages.

   Suffering

   This I feel should not be changed. Where some-one has suffered pain and distress owing to medical negligence, compensation ought to be available for that.

   Future Care

   To be furnished by the N.H.S.

   The presumption ought to be — as set out by Mme. Raccoon — that, where ever possible, care will be provided from N.H.S. resources. Only in the exceptional case of care’s not being available within the service ought care in the private sector to be funded.

   Finance

   The absurd principle of tying trusts arising out of such settlements to bonds — especially since bond yields look likely to continue at trivial levels for years, if not decades, thanks to the mess created by the World’s central bankers — must be dropped and managers permitted to invest as fund managers in general do: even if only passively (sc. in tracker funds, those that merely shadow the market). Awards, where care must be provided otherwise that by the N.H.S., could then reflect the better returns typical of equities.

   Investing one’s entire wealth in bonds, even when yields were good, has never been anything but folly; stocks, properly chosen and managed, have been a sound means of wealth management for at least two centuries.

   Although, in response to Carol42’s implied suggestion, Madame states the legal position now — that an award becomes part of the recipient’s estate, remaining so on death — I believe it ought to be quite easy to alter the law so that so much of an award made against a public body such as the N.H.S. as is to provide for future care in the private sector became a determined trust, reverting to that body on the death of the successful plaintiff. (There would no longer be an award for care in the private sector in the normal run of things.)

   ΠΞ

   Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.