Well I guess you might be right about this, Laurie. But it does say there was brain damage after a car accident which suggests a head injury which suggests there might be blood. It certainly doesn't seem like a far-fetched conclusion that someone would bleed in the ear after sustaining a head injury in a car accident. But, as I say, you might be right, maybe there wasn't. But why are you presuming there wasn't? Not just because it wasn't mentioned in the newspaper report? Tim -----Original Message----- From: Laurie Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: ABC News: Maggots in patient's ear worry coroner >It appears that you have made the same mistake as Judi has, Tim. > >There was no mention of a wound in the ear. > >Judi presumes that there was bleeding, but that was not stated in the >report. > >Snip > > >> Laurie wrote: >> >I suppose the bottom line is, would any of us be "settled down" or as >> Sandy >> >says, ''relaxed and comfortable", if our own child or sibling died under >> >such conditions? >> >> But I don't think this is the bottom line. Your concern, quite rightly, >is >> whether the maggots are an indicator of neglect, in this case, with >> particularly pernicious racist overtones. That was the thrust of your >> original post I think it is fair to say? > >My concern is the circumstances surrounding the death of Corey Paddy . The >coroner expressed 'significant concern "at the presence of the >maggots---surely this gives some indication that he believes that the >patient was neglected, and that the maggots were a manifestation of that >neglect. > > >You wrote: "Isn't this an absolute >> bloody disgrace. How could the coroner possibly find that the staff did >> their best? A 25 year old has died with his ear infested with maggots >while >> in their >> care. They should be sued for criminal negligence and the coroner should >be >> sacked----fat chance while the people of the Northern Territory keep >> electing racists like Stone and Burke as Chief Minister." >> >> I must admit, I agreed and had come to the same conclusion. >> >> However, if I understand Judi correctly, maggots are NOT necessarily an >> indication of neglect, but are quite a common occurence in this sort of >> injury. That is, the fact that there were maggots in this wound tells us >> nothing about whether the patient was neglected, let alone if there were >> racist overtones. > > >What injury are you referring to? There was no wound mentioned. > The racist overtones exist because the hospital is run by the Northern >Territory Govt.----were there any non-indigenous patients in a similar >condition consigned to the verandah?---the coroner did find that the staff >treatment of Mr. Paddy was 'barely adequate"----surely this is a criticism >that could be tested in a civil court. > >> >> If that is the case, then highlighting the maggots and using that as a >basis >> for outrage is misplaced. This is why she suggested you calm down. > > >The coroner highlighted the maggots ---perhaps he was "outraged" and needed >to "calm down" > > >> >> So it is not simply a case of "fire in the belly" as Sandy suggests - >though >> again, I agree with Sandy that such an attitude is generally a good thing. >> >> It is a case that the fact (maggots) that generated the "fire" was not >> actually a relevant fact. If that is the case, then Judi is right to >> suggest that we all "do some research" about the reasons for maggots in >this >> sort of wound. > > >There was no wound in the ear mentioned. The coroner referred to maggots as >a visible sign of perhaps neglectful treatment of the patient. > >> >> Of course, there might be other reasons for finding nelgelct. It's just >> that maggots aren't that reason. > >That does not follow. > > > If we are concluding that people should be >> "sued for criminal nelgicence" and the coroner "sacked" then our reasons >> should be solid, shouldn't they, and not just based on an (understandably) >> emotional reaction to the presence of maggots? > > >The solid ,unemotional, reasons are that a 25year old died unexpectedly and >a coroner inferred that staff had been neglectful by finding that , "the >level of care is not excusable" and mentioned maggots in the ear as one >possible or probable evidence of that neglect. > >That is, if as Judi >> suggests, maggots don't indicate neglect, then we can't use then as basis >> for sacking or suing someone for neglect. > >I think that Judi suggests that maggots do not necessarily indicate >neglect---in this case the coroner obviously thinks that they may well do >so. > >Laurie >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived >at http://www.mail-archive.com/ >> To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the >body >> of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce >> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without >permission from the >> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and >research under the "fair >> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be >distributed further without >> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." >> >> RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ >http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ > >------------------------------------------------------ >RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ >To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body >of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce >This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the >copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair >use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without >permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." > >RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ ------------------------------------------------------ RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
