Jeremy Hunt calls for ‘urgent re-examination' of Lucy Letby case
Giving evidence in January at the Thirlwall Inquiry over Letby's crimes, Sir Jeremy – who was Health Secretary between 2012 and 2018 – acknowledged the 'appalling crime' took place under his watch and he bore ultimately responsibility for the NHS ' insofar as lessons were not learned from previous inquiries that could have been or the right systems were not in place'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Time for a rethink about what the NHS is able to provide
I agree that we need to have a rethink about what the NHS and healthcare as a whole should do. We need to change the emphasis from treatment to cure, from prescriptions to prevention. READ MORE: NHS Grampian to scrap free nappies for newborns in bid to save £23m Using myself as an example, I have been a type-2 diabetic for almost 20 years. First I was prescribed Metformin, the dose of which was gradually ramped up, then another drug was added, then another, then another so that I almost rattle when I walk. 20 years ago, no-one said: 'Go on this diet and come back in six months, fatty'. Nobody said: 'I wonder why his pancreas suddenly stopped working properly'. Nobody ever looks at how my body is working in any detail; everyone looks at their own speciality. If they had looked at me properly 10 years ago when treating me for something trivial, they would have seen the early pathognomonic signs of the life-threatening condition I now am being treated for. I wouldn't have been on unnecessary anti-coagulants for years if an ECG recording had been examined by a cardiologist rather than someone trialling new equipment. I have had the ridiculous situation where my GP takes blood from me to check on one thing and the hospital consultant repeats the process two days later to look at another factor. READ MORE: Stephen Flynn clashes with Labour MP in BBC interview: 'Don't talk over me' Medicine and surgery have changed dramatically since the NHS was created. We need to start from scratch and decide what we can afford to do. Life is unfair, and unless the structure of society is radically changed, the majority of us can never have the same options or opportunities that are available to the top 1%. We need more staff and more funding. First of all, we need to train enough staff here in the UK rather than relying on 25% of the staff coming from overseas. Those who gain their initial degrees in Scotland and are trained by the NHS should work full-time in the NHS and the private sector should train its own staff. We need more time spent on initial consultations; regular health MOTs where every common condition that could affect a patient of that age is assessed. We need to stop providing treatments that modern medicine can do but are the 'icing on the cake'. Would society collapse if assisted reproduction wasn't available on the NHS? Should we offer bariatric surgery? I hate to say, it but should we treat OAPs like me if we can't be discharged home to look after ourselves, if the treatment simply delays the inevitable and gives no quality of life? The hospital service in Scotland will definitely collapse if 10% or more of the available beds continue to be taken up by those who do not require further inpatient treatment but just have nowhere to go. If Obergruppenfuhrer Starmer can suddenly decide to double the UK defence budget to keep Nato happy, why can't he do the same for the NHS and keep us all happy? David J Crawford Glasgow MAYBE Norman Robertson (Letters, June 17) missed the sardonic nature of my letter of June 16, but at no point did I single out Israel alone. I noted that each country was equally unstable. I also made clear Netanyahu faced internal opposition to his war from within Israel. What I find interesting is that while Israel is reported on as being a 'state' by UK media, Iran is always referred to as a 'regime'; in fact the orange king of the USA of talks of Iran in terms of a 'regime change' being needed. READ MORE: Angela Rayner does not rule out following US into war with Iran The reality is that without USA defence funding and the backing of Zionist billionaires, Israel is busted. Without a war, Netanyahu is heading for criminal fines and possible imprisonment in Israel, all before the ICC gets hold of him for war crimes in Gaza. The only one who gains from further escalation in the Middle East is Netanyahu. At no time in recent history has bombing of cities changed anyone's minds. The myth of precision bombing still leaves a lot of collateral damage. Ballistic missiles can be off their aiming point from between 200 to 500 metres, no matter their manufacturer's claims. We are now at Sarajevo in 1914 and, courtesy of Mr Starmer getting a 'trade deal' with the orange king, the UK is already being sucked into the active defence of Israel whether any voter in the UK wishes it or not, with the RAF spy plane and increased Typhoon deployment to Cyprus. The Royal Navy is already active in the Red Sea and Hormuz Strait, shooting down missiles fired from Yemen while monitoring Iranian missile launches for the US and Israeli military. READ MORE: Keir Starmer to chair emergency Cobra meeting on Middle East How far away is the UK from putting boots on the ground on behalf of the regime in Israel? I have seen 'active service', suffered having friends killed and maimed, and like many I would say that no matter how the politicians polish this particular turd, it always ends up in some form of negotiation or defeat, which raises the question 'why did we fight in the first place?' Neither Iran nor Israel are worth the death of a single UK serviceman or woman, Mr Robertson, it is as simple as that, no matter who hit who first. We are not talking about a 'jackets aff' fight at the bike sheds here, we are looking at a tipping point for World War Three. Peter Thomson Kirkcudbright
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
NHS nurse ordered to remove ‘antisemitic' video of watermelon launches legal action
A senior NHS nurse who says he was ordered to remove his video with a background showing a fruit bowl containing a watermelon because it could be perceived as antisemitic has launched legal action against his employer. Ahmad Baker, who is British-Palestinian and works at Whipps Cross hospital, north London, is one of three medical staff claiming Barts Health NHS trust's ban on staff displaying symbols perceived as politically or nationally affiliated is disproportionate and discriminatory. Watermelons became symbols of Palestine amid censorship of the Palestinian flag because of its similar colours. Barts, which runs five London hospitals, introduced the ban in March in its updated uniform and dress code policy, which extends to items on workstations, laptops and iPads, even if staff are working from home and not seeing patients. The policy says it is in keeping with the trust's responsibility to be 'completely apolitical and non-biased in our care', but the claimants point to Barts' support for Ukraine. Baker said: 'As a Palestinian, I should be able to express my identity and solidarity with my people, especially during a humanitarian crisis. Being told that a still-life painting containing a watermelon could be perceived as antisemitic and being threatened with disciplinary action is deeply upsetting. 'I've worked for the NHS for over a decade – this is not the inclusivity I thought we stood for.' Baker, along with Dr Aarash Saleh, a respiratory consultant at Whipps Cross, and Dr Sara Ali, a haematology registrar who previously worked at the Royal London hospital, claim the policy amounts to indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, disproportionately affecting staff who wish to express pro-Palestinian beliefs, particularly considering events in Gaza. They also say that it say it unlawfully discriminates against them because of their anti-Zionist views, which were found to be a protected belief under the Equality Act by an employment tribunal last year. Baker has also raised separate claims of direct discrimination and harassment. Ali said: 'To suggest that expressing support for the Palestinians who are facing one of the most catastrophic humanitarian crises in recent history is somehow threatening, after the trust had rightly expressed support for Ukraine, is not only manifestly discriminatory but is antithetical to the values of universal empathy and compassion that underpin our practice as healthcare workers.' A letter before action sent on behalf of the healthcare staff by Liana Wood from the law firm Leigh Day also argues that there was 'inappropriate consultation' with a pro-Israel advocacy group, while sidelining internal staff voices. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), having complained to the trust about pro-Palestinian symbols worn by staff, published an article on its website about the new policy eight days before it was officially implemented. Saleh said: 'It's especially troubling that UKLFI publicly announced the policy before the trust itself had communicated it to staff – this raises serious concerns about transparency and whose voices were prioritised in the process.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The medics, who are crowdfunding their legal costs on the CrowdJustice platform, are seeking the removal of key provisions of the policy, a declaration from the employment tribunal that discrimination has taken place, and compensation for injury to feelings they have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the policy. Wood said: 'Trusts must take care not to impose disproportionate restrictions on expression, especially where those restrictions appear to be targeted at a specific group or belief.' A spokesperson for Barts said: 'We recognise the distress that global conflict has for our diverse workforce and continue to support their wellbeing as they serve our patients. However, as an NHS organisation our primary responsibility is care for patients.' They said the policy aimed to 'uphold political neutrality, creating an inclusive culture at work, and a safe space for patients in their time of need'.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
170 patients harmed as a result of cyber attack
Pathology services provider Synnovis was the victim of a ransomware attack by a Russian cyber gang in June last year. As a result more than 10,000 appointments were cancelled at the two London NHS trusts that were worst affected. And a significant number of GP practices in London were unable to order blood tests for their patients. Now the Health Service Journal (HSJ) has reported that there were nearly 600 'incidents' linked to the attack, with patient care suffering in 170 of these. This includes one cases of 'severe' harm, 14 which led to 'moderate' harm with the rest identified as 'low harm'. According to NHS guidance severe harm occurs when patients either suffers permanent harm; needs life saving care or could have reduced their life expectancy, among a number of other factors.
