Today, Times 2 reports
on the case of Isabel Maude who, at the age of three, all but died
after a misdiagnosis. Despite suffering the high fever and bluish
discoloration symptomatic of the flesh-eating bacterium, necrotising
fasciitis, she was told by doctors that these were merely the signs
of the chickenpox that she also had at the time. Two days later,
Isabel was rushed to the nearest hospital in a state of toxic shock.
This time doctors got the diagnosis of her rare disease correct. But
though Isabel — now a lively five-year-old — did not suffer
permanent neurological damage, she will need six further operations
over the next two years to rebuild her abdomen and groin where dead
flesh had to be excised.
Her parents, Jason and Charlotte Maude, made her story public
not, unusually, because they wanted to sue but because they intended
to set up a national “safety-net” — a computer on to which doctors
could tap in symptoms and access a database of possible diagnoses —
which could save lives in future. They have so far been successful
and the software is already on trial in four teaching hospitals.
Mr and Mrs Maude can only be admired for their unselfish
attitude. Ridicule and disbelief may greet many of today’s
outlandish compensation payouts. But still “compensation culture”
encourages members of the public into considering themselves
“victims” of the system rather than contributors to it. Medical
mistakes (among numerous other types of accident) can prove a
lucrative source of funds. And although the life or health of a
relative are not quantifiable in cash terms, reactions of grief,
fear or anger are often channelled into seeking such recompense. In
the end however, it is the taxpaying public that foots the bill.
Payments cost the National Health Service some £2.8 billion a
year which means that, as lawyers and a few individuals profit, many
taxpayers may be denied the medical services they need owing to lack
of funds. Surely then, limited finances are better reserved for
treating the illnesses of the living than on paying out to the
bereaved. It would, of course, be a contravention of the Human
Rights Act to withdraw the right to sue for medical negligence. And
in many cases — where carers will be permanently needed, for example
— financial recompense is essential. But in deciding not to sue and
instead to seek ways in which similar accidents might be prevented
in future, Mr and Mrs Maude reveal themselves to be innovators
rather than victims. In setting the public good above their own
private interests, they set the finest form of
example.
