Alan Kelly wants legislation to allow compo claims for stillborns

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
I think we need to think clearer about this kind of stuff. These claims are paid out by the taxpayer. Having a stillborn experience may be sad and all that.

But we have to find a way of looking people who've had sad experiences and say "you don't get compo".

Certainly, this is not something to be encouraged. Why is the taxpayer such a soft touch for this kind of thing?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-whose-son-was-stillborn-in-medical-negligence-case-hit-out-at-claims-system-which-puts-women-on-trial-37009042.html

The family have worked with Labour TD Alan Kelly on a new piece of legislation, the Civil Liability (Amendment) Bill 2018, which would allow families whose child is stillborn due to medical negligence to seek compensation for psychological distress.

Mr Kelly said the bill will address an anomaly in the law that sees parents whose child is stillborn unable to seek recourse in the same way as families whose child is born alive but later dies.
Just for starters, did AK not hear that we've repealed the Eighth?
 


Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Very defensive. Have you a personal interest in encouraging taxpayer-funded compo claims?
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,745
nice op.

An exercise in olympic ignorance and olympic-standard ignoring:

The expression "due to medical negligence", though quoted directly in the post, is skipped blithely in an incoherent, stream-of-consciousness rant.

Zoo.

For that alone.
..or, you know, you could express an opinion on the OP's topic...
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,888
Of course they’re due compensation. The same way someone punching an 8 months pregnant woman which results in death is guilty of a crime.

Is this actually something you don’t understand or is this another moronic “People voted Yes and now 5 year olds can be aborted because you’re all JERKS” threads?
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Of course they’re due compensation. The same way someone punching an 8 months pregnant woman which results in death is guilty of a crime.

Is this actually something you don’t understand or is this another moronic “People voted Yes and now 5 year olds can be aborted because you’re all JERKS” threads?
For what its worth, even when the Eighth was in place the taxpayer wasn't expected to stump up financial compensation in respect of the lost life of the stillborn.

That's actually the logic used by the legal representatives of the case inspiring this proposal
https://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/heartbrokem-mum-tells-of-wexford-hospital-failures-35335990.html

January 7 2017

Derek said he wanted to make people aware that in Ireland you cannot sue for the death of a child in the womb, only for the pain and suffering caused to the mother.

'Parents need to know that,' he said.

Susie Elliott, lawyer and partner at Cork-based Cantillons Solicitors, which represented the Underwoods, said that under the Eighth Amendment, 'we say a foetus is a fully fledged life and we export thousands of women annually for abortions given the value the Constitution puts on those lives. 'Yet.. when it comes to the State (or any other defendant) inflicting a fatal injury through negligence on an unborn child, that life cannot be vindicated through the civil courts.' Derek said the couple's legal costs had been paid by the HSE but did not comment any further on the out of court settlement.
Its hard applying critical analysis in cases where really unfortunate things happen to people.

But the taxpayer is on the hook. Even in cases where the doctor was attended on a private basis in a public hospital (which seems to be the case here) the taxpayer is on the hook. Not a good use of our money.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I think we need to think clearer about this kind of stuff. These claims are paid out by the taxpayer. Having a stillborn experience may be sad and all that.

But we have to find a way of looking people who've had sad experiences and say "you don't get compo".

Certainly, this is not something to be encouraged. Why is the taxpayer such a soft touch for this kind of thing?Just for starters, did AK not hear that we've repealed the Eighth?
Due to medical negligence.?
Seems you missed that bit bigly.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
? But sure its in the quote.
Not a fan of AK , but it’s not an unreasonable position to seek medical compensation for negligence causing stillbirth or afterbirth death.
Normally the medical insurers provide this so Kelly’s case that the state should do it has no merit.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,888
But the taxpayer is on the hook. Even in cases where the doctor was attended on a private basis in a public hospital (which seems to be the case here) the taxpayer is on the hook. Not a good use of our money.
They’re on the hook because we’ve chosen as a state to have a Public Health Service. There’s no difference bewtween a doctor being negligent and a child dies during birth and a doctor being negligent and the 1 minute old baby dying as a result. That’s what AK is addressing.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
Not a fan of AK , but it’s not an unreasonable position to seek medical compensation for negligence causing stillbirth or afterbirth death.
I'm not sure you're following the thread. Folk can already claim for the (as ou put it) afterbirth death. The mother can also claim for mental distress. The point is whether they should get extra compo, which they would if an actual live child died.

The contention in the case that inspired AK's case is that the lost life of a stillborn should be compensated on the same basis. The rationale for this, advanced by the legal representatives in that case, was explicitly the now-repealed eighth amendment. I just posted this.
https://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/heartbrokem-mum-tells-of-wexford-hospital-failures-35335990.html

Derek said he wanted to make people aware that in Ireland you cannot sue for the death of a child in the womb, only for the pain and suffering caused to the mother.

'Parents need to know that,' he said.

Susie Elliott, lawyer and partner at Cork-based Cantillons Solicitors, which represented the Underwoods, said that under the Eighth Amendment, 'we say a foetus is a fully fledged life and we export thousands of women annually for abortions given the value the Constitution puts on those lives. 'Yet.. when it comes to the State (or any other defendant) inflicting a fatal injury through negligence on an unborn child, that life cannot be vindicated through the civil courts.' Derek said the couple's legal costs had been paid by the HSE but did not comment any further on the out of court settlement.
Do you now get the point?
Normally the medical insurers provide this so Kelly’s case that the state should do it has no merit.
Wrong. All work in public hospitals is covered by the taxpayer-funded Clinical Indemnity Scheme. You and me are the ones who pay. Be very clear about that.

Private hospitals don't do obstetrics because they can't get medical insurance. The taxpayer even covers private work done in public hospitals, as was the situation in this case
https://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/heartbrokem-mum-tells-of-wexford-hospital-failures-35335990.html

Asked whether she was satisfied at the outcome, Mignon replied that she wasn't because the private consultant should have been named.

'He should have been identified,' she told this newspaper.

Mignon said the family did attempt to sue both the HSE and the consultant, however, soon after proceedings were issued their solicitors received a letter from the HSE solicitors to say that the HSE indemnify him and that the case will only be directed against them.
So is the reason people give these cases an easy ride because they think insurers are covering the costs?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
They’re on the hook because we’ve chosen as a state to have a Public Health Service. There’s no difference bewtween a doctor being negligent and a child dies during birth and a doctor being negligent and the 1 minute old baby dying as a result. That’s what AK is addressing.
The doctor is already covered by insurance for negligence afaik.
Kelly seems to want the state undertake this liability .

That’s the issue.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
They’re on the hook because we’ve chosen as a state to have a Public Health Service. There’s no difference bewtween a doctor being negligent and a child dies during birth and a doctor being negligent and the 1 minute old baby dying as a result. That’s what AK is addressing.
Wrong. Please see above. The State covers private obstetric work, as was the case here.

As to the legal position of a stillborn, note the quote from the legal representatives of the couple that I posted above. Their legal representative is the one citing the now-repealed Eighth as the basis for this contention.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,831
The doctor is already covered by insurance for negligence afaik.
Kelly seems to want the state undertake this liability .

That’s the issue.
Wrong. The doctor is already covered by the State, including private obstetric work.

I've said this clearly, quoting relevant stuff. Please read and understand before posting again.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I'm not sure you're following the thread. Folk can already claim for the (as ou put it) afterbirth death. The mother can also claim for mental distress. The point is whether they should get extra compo, which they would if an actual live child died.

The contention in the case that inspired AK's case is that the lost life of a stillborn should be compensated on the same basis. The rationale for this, advanced by the legal representatives in that case, was explicitly the now-repealed eighth amendment. I just posted this.Do you now get the point?
Wrong. All work in public hospitals is covered by the taxpayer-funded Clinical Indemnity Scheme. You and me are the ones who pay. Be very clear about that.

Private hospitals don't do obstetrics because they can't get medical insurance. The taxpayer even covers private work done in public hospitals, as was the situation in this caseSo is the reason people give these cases an easy ride because they think insurers are covering the costs?
The point is liability for medical negligence when proven.
Doctors are already insured for this.

AK is puffing wind again.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Wrong. The doctor is already covered by the State, including private obstetric work.

I've said this clearly, quoting relevant stuff. Please read and understand before posting again.
Are you supporting AK?
He has no case based on what you allege.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top