Boy (8) who sued Children's Health Ireland settles with €2m interim payment
A baby boy who, it was claimed, suffered a brain injury after he went into severe septic shock as he recovered weeks after surgery at a Dublin hospital has settled a High Court action with an interim €2 million lump sum payment.
Evan McCurry will also get €250,000 a year for the next four years as part of the settlement against Children's Health Ireland.
Advertisement
His counsel, Oonah McCrann SC, instructed by Cantillons Solicitors, told the court Evan, who was born with complex congenital heart disease, had to have a number of surgeries after his birth.
He had a surgical procedure at Children's Health Ireland, Crumlin, Dublin, on September 5th, 2017, related to his condition.
He was scheduled for discharge a few weeks later, but Counsel said it was their case that he developed a wound infection and septic shock, which she said had 'catastrophic consequences" for him and his family.
The case settled on day four of the hearing, and the settlement is without an admission of liability.
Advertisement
Children's Health Ireland (CHI) said it did not overlook any obvious signs of evolving infection, but that the little boy had suffered a rapid onset of systemic infection in or around the early hours of September 26th, 2017, for which he was treated appropriately.
It contended the boy's brain injury was not caused by any alleged breach of duty but by severe septic shock caused by a highly virulent infection.
Counsel told the court that Evan, who is now 8 years old, is cognitively impaired, but is a happy little boy.
A full defence, she said, was entered in the case and it was claimed by Children's Health Ireland that sepsis developed very quickly over a number of hours and could not have been picked up at an earlier stage.
Advertisement
Evan McCurry of Stoneybatter, Dublin, had, through his mother, Helen McCurry, sued Children's Health Ireland.
In the proceedings, it was claimed that between September 20th to September 26th, 2017, the boy allegedly displayed the history and symptoms of an infection at the site of his operation wound.
It was claimed that there was an alleged failure to investigate, diagnose or treat it in time or at all, with the result that he went on to suffer septic shock or a watershed stroke.
There was, it was claimed, an alleged failure to give any or any adequate attention to signs of wound infection, and there was an alleged failure to pay any proper attention to worsening signs of wound infection, including vomiting on September 23rd, 2017.
Advertisement
There was, it was claimed, a failure to have commenced antibiotic treatment, at the latest on September 23rd, 2017.
It was also contended that there was an alleged failure to treat effectively the baby's wound infection before the development of septic shock and associated watershed stroke.
All of the claims were denied.
Approving the settlement and adjourning the case to 2030, Mr Justice Paul Coffey said he was satisfied the settlement was fair and reasonable, and he was delighted it had been resolved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Frazer Irvine inquest hears ‘basic care' may have saved his life
A man probably would have survived if ambulance workers had provided "basic clinical care", a medical expert has told an Irvine, 39, died after he called 999 and had a heart attack on 18 March Thursday, Prof Charles Deakin said it was likely Mr Irvine would have survived if the ambulance crew had taken efforts to manage his breathing instead of leaving him face down in his own John Sutherland and ambulance technician Tom Le Sauteur were previously found guilty of failing to take reasonable care of Mr Irvine the night he died. That verdict was upheld at an appeal hearing. Coroner Bridget Dolan KC read extracts from the post-mortem report of Mr Irvine that said he died of a heart attack, with a background of mixed alcohol and drug use, and aspiration - meaning food or vomit in his lungs.A toxicology report found Mr Irvine had a high blood alcohol level, two-and-a-half times the maximum limit to drive, and much lower levels of three different prescription drugs in his Deakin told the inquest in Jersey he did not believe the mix of drugs and alcohol would have caused a cardiac arrest if the ambulance workers had taken measures to manage Mr Irvine's airway. Airway blocked He said the ambulance staff left Mr Irvine lying at the top of the staircase outside his flat in a position that was not the recovery position but was "essentially face down" with his head in his vomit and his hand partly covering his added that it would have "inevitably" blocked Mr Irvine's airway, reducing the amount of oxygen he could take said Sutherland and Le Sauteur could have prevented this by a "number of means" such as repositioning Mr Irvine's airway to open it, suctioning vomit from his mouth and giving him extra said: 'It is basic clinical care to remove vomit from someone's airway, irrespective of what position they are in.' On Wednesday, Sutherland said he and his colleague may have been able to move Mr Irvine down the staircase and get him to hospital if there had not been "huge delays" in the time it took for police to respond to calls for added that the police who did attend were 'outstanding' when they Deakin said he did not believe any potential delay in the police responding to calls for assistance caused Mr Irvine's said when the police did arrive there was a 12-minute window where the ambulance staff could have provided appropriate care that would have given Mr Irvine "a good chance of survival". Shortcomings to be addressed Ms Dolan said it was still a "factual issue" regarding whether the ambulance crew made one or two calls for police she questioned a senior police officer, DCI Mark Hafey, on why the call the police did respond to was categorised as a Grade 2 response, requiring a 60-minute response time, as opposed to Grade 1, requiring blue lights and a 10-minute Hafey said, on the information emergency call handlers had, it would always have been a Grade 2 he did admit that the call handlers should have asked more questions of the ambulance staff regarding the urgency of the situation, which would have changed the call to Grade questioned about the lack of a relevant policy on how 999 call handlers collect information when paramedics call for police assistance, he said police management would review current procedures and address inquest, expected to conclude on Friday, continues.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The misuse of ADHD drugs – and what they really do to your body and brain
Be more alert; improve your focus; do better at work: these are the reasons why high-flyers, from surgeons to lawyers and bankers, take 'brain-doping' ADHD drugs despite not having the condition. Now, increasing numbers of elite athletes are joining them, looking for something extra to give them the competitive edge. But taking ADHD drugs when you don't need them will certainly do more harm than good, with many takers becoming more irritable, experiencing sleep disruption and, in the most serious cases, causing heart problems, anxiety and depression. Sportspeople are barred by the World Anti-Doping Agency from taking ADHD medications such as Ritalin and Adderall before competing, but those who have been diagnosed with ADHD are exempt, on the grounds that they need the drugs to function. Such exemptions have tripled in the last five years, so suspicion has turned to the 'subjective assessments' by doctors to diagnose athletes with ADHD in adulthood, John Brewer, a former UK Anti Doping board member told The Telegraph last month. There has been a known black market for ADHD drugs ever since they became available to buy online, with packets of Ritalin, the drug most commonly prescribed to people with ADHD in Britain, selling for less than £20 on the websites of unscrupulous online pharmacies. It's more common, however, for stressed students and professionals alike to acquire spare pills from friends and family. In fact parents, who believe they have ADHD but have never been diagnosed, have been known 'to take stimulants that have been prescribed for their children because they think it helps them to perform better', says Katya Rubia, professor of cognitive neuroscience at King's College London. What are the main ADHD drugs and how do they affect your brain? In Britain, the drug most commonly prescribed for ADHD is Ritalin, the brand name for the drug methylphenidate – a type of stimulant drug. Adderall, another stimulant drug, is typically prescribed in America, and sometimes finds its way into the hands of British students (or professionals) illegally. There is an important distinction between 'misuse' of ADHD drugs – taking them in their prescribed doses when you don't have ADHD – and 'abuse', which means taking large amounts of Adderall or Ritalin for a high, says Prof Rubia. ADHD drugs are considered to be 'very safe' in the small doses prescribed to treat the condition, adds Prof Rubia, but abusing the drugs can cause heart palpitations, stomach aches and can be 'neurotoxic'. 'They actually change your brain's dopamine system, producing effects like anxiety and depression, as well as inattention and difficulties with memory,' she adds. In other words, abusing ADHD drugs can leave you with a set of symptoms that look a lot like ADHD. Prof Rubia also strongly advises against misusing ADHD drugs because 'you shouldn't take ADHD drugs at all if you don't have ADHD; you're a healthy person and the side effects are unnecessary'. You might believe that taking ADHD drugs when you don't have ADHD would make you think more sharply, but that's far from the truth. ADHD drugs 'work on your brain's dopamine system, to increase the amount that your brain has available to use,' says Prof Rubia. People with ADHD 'don't have enough dopamine, so struggle with motivation, concentration and focus, as well as keeping time and controlling their own behaviour, especially in children'. Taken by people without ADHD, the drugs might improve alertness, but they have a negative impact on other functioning, due to the 'U-shaped' impact of the levels of dopamine in your brain: past a certain point, your attention, focus and motivation will suffer. 'If you don't have ADHD, you already have an optimal amount of dopamine in your system, so increasing it will make you perform worse,' Prof Rubia says. One study, published in 2023, gave three groups a common 'smart drug' (Adderall, Ritalin or Modafinil, which is prescribed for narcolepsy in Britain) and observed how it affected their performance in a problem-solving task. 'When taking any of the drugs, the participants tried harder, but performed less well,' says Peter Bossaerts, professor of neuroeconomics at the University of Cambridge, who led the study. Those who performed best without the drugs 'performed below the mean when they were on them,' he adds. 'So they aren't really smart drugs. They make you dumber, but more busy and more motivated.' Another study, using a similar task to assess cognitive performance, found again that 'people who took 'smart drugs' performed worse despite trying harder,' Prof Bossaerts says. Here, worsened memory seemed to be behind the decline in ability. 'Dopamine doesn't only affect motivation, but also your memory, and drugs like Ritalin work on the dopamine receptors in your prefrontal cortex' – the part of your brain that manages your working memory and lets you retrieve memories from the past, Prof Bossaerts points out. The effects of taking so-called 'smart drugs' (also known as 'study drugs') are also short-lived. 'Students who take them might feel a bit down and sluggish for a few days after their exams, but they'll quickly pick up again in most cases,' says Prof Bossaerts. Abuse, or taking large amounts of Adderall or Ritalin for a high, is another matter. This means that the drugs have a 'high potential for abuse', even if you start out taking them occasionally to pull an all-nighter or meet an important deadline, Prof Rubia believes. 'As your body gets used to them, you need more and more to feel the same effects.' The way in which ADHD drugs are prescribed for people who require them is vital. 'Over months or years you will see their effects decline over time' explains Prof Rubia. 'ADHD drugs are the best kind of psychiatric medicine we have available, because in small doses they are so safe and the side effects are so minimal. But they do quickly decrease in efficacy over time as the brain gets used to them. To counter this in people with ADHD, we give people 'holidays' where they stop taking their prescription for a while or slowly increase the dose over time.' What do ADHD drugs do to your body? The huge climb in athletes diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood is no coincidence, says Prof Rubia, as use of the drugs has long been commonplace in sports. That said, a significant proportion of athletes who have been diagnosed with ADHD as adults may well have the condition. A Taekwondo black belt or football star probably has a higher likelihood of having the condition than the average person, Prof Rubia believes. 'People with ADHD are very often good at sports,' she explains. 'They have more energy than the average person, and where academics might have been a struggle at school, they might have realised their talent for sports and pursued that instead.' Intense sports practice can also be an effective tool for managing ADHD symptoms. Prof Rubia recalls meeting an Olympic karate fighter who had 'managed to overcome his ADHD without medication by training in a very focused way'. A sportsperson who takes ADHD drugs without having ADHD, however, might be in for a shock. Though the drugs might improve performance in the short term by making athletes 'feel less tired and more alert, as if they've had a lot of coffee,' Prof Rubia says people misusing the drugs over weeks or months might find themselves feeling less motivated and alert than they were before. 'Even within a day, they'll feel more low by the evening than they otherwise would.' Whether you're an athlete or not, taking stimulant ADHD drugs when you don't have the condition 'will affect your body in very similar ways these drugs affect the bodies of people with ADHD who take them,' says Prof Rubia. Stimulants increase your heart rate and blood pressure and can also reduce your appetite, while making you feel more awake and alert. People who take Ritalin also report some personality changes, like being more irritable and on edge, as well as worsened sleep, but both can also be symptoms of ADHD itself. Some research has indicated, however, that long-term use of ADHD medications (in people with and without the condition) may lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Weight loss and headaches are common, as are gut problems, though side effects like these are usually mild. In children who take ADHD medication, 'there's some evidence that it stunts growth slightly compared to how tall a child's parents are,' Prof Rubia adds. All in all, to better understand how these drugs affect our bodies 'we need more studies that observe the effects of ADHD drugs on both the healthy population and on people who have ADHD,' says Prof Rubia. Anecdotally, though, the physical impact of taking ADHD drugs when you don't need them is clear, Prof Bossaerts says with a sigh: 'I remember a student once passing out in front of me because he'd taken 'study drugs' over his final exams and had been awake for three days in a row at that point.' At best, it's counterproductive but, at worst, taking so-called 'smart drugs' can be a real danger to your health – not such a smart move after all.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves's war on the private sector is crushing Britain's economy
Rachel Reeves has cemented 'historic changes' to enlarge the British state, according to one of the nation's leading economists, with the battered private sector now looking at permanently higher taxes to support it. Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says it is hard to overstate the scale of the shift taking place in the economy this decade, as government spending mounts on public services, welfare and debt interest – and taxes rise to match. 'These are historic changes in the size of the state and the size of taxation in this country,' says Johnson. 'Over all of my lifetime up until 2020, taxes hovered around 33pc of national income. By the end of this decade they will be 38pc of national income. I cannot see them coming down. 'In economic history terms I think this decade will be seen as the decade in which the British state grew.' An older and sicker population suggests the state will only get bigger. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation, a think tank, shows that Reeves has put health spending on course to gobble up half of all the money spent on day-to-day services by the end of the decade. This is up from a third in 2010 and roughly a quarter in 1999. 'That is a huge increase. Everything else pales a bit in significance,' says James Smith, an economist at the Resolution Foundation. 'We are becoming ever more a health state.' The proportion may rise even more after Labour publishes its 10-year plan for the NHS later this year. Previous proposals outlined by the Tories suggested that making the health service fit for the future would require a 50pc rise in the number of staff to 2.4m by 2037. Such an increase would mean one in 11 workers in England would be employed by the NHS, compared with one in 17 in 2021, according to the IFS. Ruth Curtice, the Resolution Foundation chief executive, said the clear shift towards higher health spending constituted a 'major reshaping of the state'. Weakening economy Labour is using its gigantic parliamentary majority to push through such seismic change. Yet at the same time the economy is weakening, undermining Reeves's ability to pay for her grand spending plans. GDP dropped by 0.3pc between April and March, suggesting the strong growth seen during the first three months of the year was not the start of a sustained recovery. The Chancellor has blamed Donald Trump's trade war for knocking Britain off course, and it undoubtedly had an effect. However, there is no sense that Reeves has adapted her plans to cope with Trump's crusade, which has been known about for months. Furthermore, April's GDP numbers also show clear signs that it was Reeves, not Trump, who was to blame for the slowdown. The services sector performed particularly poorly, with retail struggling amid the sharp rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, the tax bosses pay on workers' wages, and the minimum wage. Unemployment is up and the number of people in work is down, another sign that this 'jobs tax' is weighing on hiring. Worryingly, Britain is relying more and more on public spending to keep the economy afloat. Recent analysis by the Bank of England shows that activity has essentially been driven by the public sector over the past two years. That's not a sustainable model for growth, particularly given the dire productivity in the public sector. Businesses are increasingly frustrated. Simony Emeny, the chief executive of pub group Fuller's, argues the private sector is being forced to work far harder than the public sector. 'Because of what the Chancellor announced last year, we have had to work really hard to make our businesses as efficient as possible and use technology well and to make sure that we are in a position where we can absorb some of these cost increases,' he says. 'If I look at the Government, I don't see that same drive to improve efficiency coming through.' He cited the rise in the number of civil servants, which has soared from below 420,000 in 2016 to 550,000 today. 'The [hospitality] sector is having to be forensic about costs just to navigate the challenges we face and I'm not seeing that same scrutiny from the Government. [They] need to be consistent about this,' says Emeny. 'They're putting a lot of pressure on business with extra costs. We're having to absorb that this year, and so is everybody else.' Fuller's and other businesses may have to absorb even more costs later this year. With pressure to spend yet more on healthcare and benefits, and amid scepticism that many of the plans set out in the spending review are realistic, economists believe more tax rises await in the autumn. Johnson, at the IFS, suspects the long freeze on income tax thresholds will be extended – a classic stealth tax, as workers end up paying more tax even if their pay only rises in line with inflation – meaning they become worse off over time. Tax raid coming in autumn But that alone may not be enough. Andy King, a former senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Government's spending watchdog, says it is almost certain to slash its growth forecasts at the Budget in the autumn, in part because of Reeves's own policies. 'The immigration policy looks net negative for growth, employment rights need to be scored, the employer NICs and national living wage rises look to have done much more damage to employment than was allowed for,' he says. 'The writing seems to be on the wall for another fiscal hole in the autumn.' That points to yet another tax raid, despite the record-breaking £40bn of tax increases in the Budget last October, which was supposed to put the finances back on an even keel for the rest of this parliament. King suspects the Chancellor will have to ramp up the big taxes she has promised not to touch: VAT, National Insurance or income tax. 'Now that the spending plans have been inked in, it leaves fewer levers for restoring fiscal headroom. So it looks like a rock and a hard place for the autumn. Something important may have to give if there is a material fiscal hole to fill,' he says. 'That means either loosening the fiscal targets, which look very risky given the way the bond market is viewing the UK relative to its peers. Or it means breaking manifesto tax commitments which looks, as Sir Humphrey might say, brave, bordering on courageous.' Whatever form tax rises end up taking, it will extend what has become a well-established pattern under Labour: raid the private sector to pay for ever higher state spending.
