Hundreds of healthcare workers demand review into Letby conviction
More than 400 healthcare workers have called for a review of Lucy Letby's case.
The group, which includes 200 nurses, as well as consultants, junior doctors, radiographers and psychiatrists, has written to health unions asking them to 'stand with us' to protect staff from allegations of wrongdoing.
They claim Letby's 'unsafe' conviction has triggered a 'climate of fear' in the NHS and that they have been 'gagged' and prevented from speaking out on behalf of Letby by their trusts.
Letby, 35, of Herefordshire, was convicted of the murders of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven others while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016.
But many experts have challenged the way the evidence was presented to the jury, and a panel of world-leading experts has since reviewed the medical notes and concluded there were no malicious acts.
Letby's case is currently being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which looks into potential miscarriages of justice, although police and the Crown Prosecution Service insist she was fairly convicted.
The new letter was compiled by the group Nineteen Nurses, who originally wrote to Sir Keir Starmer about the case last year, but since then their group has grown to 426.
They claimed that 'nurses are afraid' and called for unions to demand an independent and transparent review of the Letby conviction.
'We stand united in our deep concern over what many in the nursing and wider healthcare community believes to be an unsafe conviction in the case of Lucy Letby,' they wrote.
'Many who question the fairness of this conviction are being silenced – gagged by professional pressure, fear of disciplinary action and the chilling reality that advocating for truth could end their careers.
'But we refuse to be silent. Speaking up for one nurse is speaking up for us all.
'It is not just Lucy Letby's liberty at stake, but the very foundation of trust and safety for nurses working across the UK.
'If a nurse can be convicted in such a manner, without irrefutable evidence, then any nurse could be next.'
The nurses argue that Letby's conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence and contested medical opinions. They said it had sent a 'chilling message' across the NHS: that any nurse working in a strained, high-risk environment could face criminal charges for systemic failures beyond their control.
'This isn't justice. This is scapegoating,' the letter continued. 'If a nurse can be convicted in such a manner, without irrefutable evidence, then any nurse could be next.
'Nurses are second-guessing their clinical judgment, hesitating to document decisions and are afraid to raise concerns – not because they don't care, but because they fear being punished for telling the truth.'
NineteenNurses.com was formed to support nurses and healthcare professionals affected by or concerned about miscarriages of justice within the health system.
The group says that many nurses have started second-guessing their clinical judgment, hesitating to document decisions and are afraid to raise concerns.
They are calling on the UK's main healthcare unions to demand an independent and transparent review of the Letby conviction.
'We ask our unions to stand with us in protecting the profession from the weaponisation of blame in a system already buckling under immense strain,' they added.
'We demand a truly independent review into this case, free from institutional bias and media influence.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Blood test for Alzheimer's could soon be available on the NHS
A new blood test for Alzheimer's disease has been found to accurately detect early symptoms of the illness, according to new research. Experts from the Mayo Clinic in the US examined two proteins in blood plasma – amyloid beta 42/40 and p-tau217 – which are associated with amyloid plaque build-up, a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease, to provide further evidence that blood tests can accurately diagnose dementia. The study, which was carried out on more than 500 people in an outpatient memory clinic, found the blood test was highly accurate, with 95 per cent sensitivity. That means it was 95 per cent accurate in picking up people with memory problems, with very few cases missed. It was also 82 per cent for specificity, meaning it was also highly accurate in ruling out people without dementia. The blood test has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration regulator in the US. Dr Gregg Day, who led the study in the Alzheimer's and Dementia journal, said the test was as good as more invasive tests currently in use. 'When performed in the outpatient clinical setting, this is similar to the accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of the disease and is much more convenient and cost-effective.' Overall, researchers found that p-tau217 levels were higher in patients with Alzheimer's disease versus those without the disease. Dr Day said the next steps in the research were to evaluate blood-based testing in more diverse patient populations and people with early Alzheimer's who show no cognitive symptoms. Dr Richard Oakley, associate director for research and innovation at the Alzheimer's Society in the UK, said the results 'suggest this test is very accurate' and could be used alongside other tests and observations from a trained health professional. 'While focused on Alzheimer's disease, the test was evaluated in people with other types of dementias too, showing that it may help with differentiate causes of cognitive decline – though more research in diverse groups of individuals and in community-based setting is still needed. 'Currently diagnosis options in the UK are often slow, expensive and can be invasive, meaning thousands miss out on the benefits one can bring. 'It's great to see blood tests like this approved for clinical use in the US – we hope to see the same in the NHS, which is why we're part of the Blood Biomarker Challenge.' The Blood Biomarker Challenge is a multi-million-pound research programme supported by the Alzheimer's Society, Alzheimer's Research UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Its goal is to bring blood tests for dementia diagnosis to the NHS by 2029. Dr Julia Dudley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'We urgently need to improve how we diagnose dementia and it's great to see international research working towards this goal. 'Blood tests in this study look at p-tau217 and amyloid beta 42/40, and showed the tests offered high accuracy in confirming Alzheimer's disease. 'This study adds to the growing evidence that blood tests can detect the diseases that cause dementia in people with early memory and thinking problems. 'An important point to consider is that people taking part in research don't always reflect the full diversity of those affected by dementia, who might have additional conditions or other characteristics. 'That is why work is needed to understand whether these blood tests work in a real-world setting.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
NHS Confederation and Beamtree launch data analytics platform for NHS trusts
The UK's National Health Service (NHS) Confederation has partnered with health technology company Beamtree to introduce The Evolve Collaborative, which aims to enhance the use of operational data at NHS trusts in England. The initiative is focused on offering acute care services, enhancing patient outcomes and increasing efficiency. It combines Beamtree's analytics platform with the NHS Confederation's expertise in convening and improvement, with the aim to benchmark performance, understand variations and apply data-driven enhancements to processes. NHS Confederation chief executive Matthew Taylor said: 'The Evolve Collaborative seeks to empower clinicians, boards and operations leaders with the data they need. 'The collaborative will be a driven by our members and will encourage them to be curious about who else is doing things differently, and to ask 'why'. 'By combining predictive analytics with peer learning, we're giving NHS leaders the tools and support they need to drive real, measurable improvement." The Evolve Collaborative's analytics platform uses AI and machine learning to predict future trends. This will allow NHS trusts to identify challenges and assess the potential impact of different interventions. The platform is supported by tailored dashboards and tools designed for various roles within the NHS. A key component of the partnership is the formation of peer-to-peer learning communities, which are facilitated by experts in improvement. These aim to provide a secure environment for members to exchange best practices and jointly develop solutions to common challenges. Evolve Collaborative membership is currently available to NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts providing acute services in England. Beamtree chief executive Marek Stepniak said: 'Our experience with Health Roundtable in Australia and New Zealand has delivered measurable improvements in healthcare delivery. 'These insights have already helped providers on the other side of the world achieve tangible outcomes and we look forward to bringing this proven model of learning and collaboration to the UK." "NHS Confederation and Beamtree launch data analytics platform for NHS trusts" was originally created and published by Hospital Management, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The NHS truths the Left don't want you to hear
Until very recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to market himself as a radical health reformer, who is not afraid to poke sacred cows. While his reform-minded rhetoric always remained at a highly-abstract and general level, Streeting deserved some credit for it, because he did not have to do this. He had the courage to say things which he knew would rub some people up the wrong way, not least the Corbynite wing of his own party. Sadly, that brief period of NHS candour is now officially over. Streeting, the self-styled reformer, is no more. He and his colleagues have fully retreated into their comfort zone. During the recent local election campaign, Labour distributed a leaflet that showed a mock medical bill, and a doctor holding up a credit card reader. The message was clear: vote for us, because this is what the other lot want to do to you. On Twitter/X, Labour are now frequently posting dire warnings about the alleged evils of insurance-based healthcare systems. This is exactly that old-school NHS cultism which Streeting used to disavow until five minutes ago. It may work for him. The NHS may be falling apart, but the cult around is still going strong. In the eyes of its keenest defenders, the NHS can do no wrong. They have quietly dropped the old cliché about the NHS being 'the envy of the word', and replaced it with a slightly more subtle version, which goes something like this: Once upon a time, the NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world. But then, from 2010 on, it was systematically defunded. It was deliberately run into the ground, so that it can be privatised more easily. A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor. None of these claims are true. Let's have a look at each of them in turn. The NHS was never the best healthcare system in the world. The idea that it ever was can be traced back to a ranking compiled by the Commonwealth Fund, an American healthcare think tank, which relies on a very unusual methodology, in which medical outcomes only account for a fifth of the total score. This matters, because on medical outcomes, the NHS has always been one of the worst-performing healthcare systems in the developed world – as even the Commonwealth Fund study shows. There is no turning point after which the NHS's performance suddenly deteriorated. It was just never good in the first place. At the end of the 2010s, age-adjusted real NHS spending per capita was only marginally higher than it had been in the beginning of the decade. Put differently, the NHS budget only just about kept pace with population growth, population ageing, and inflation. This clearly constituted a slowdown in spending increases compared to the previous decade. But it does not constitute a 'defunding'. In any case: that period of relative spending restraint is already over again. The NHS budget was given a massive boost during the pandemic, which has only been partially reversed. Public healthcare spending in the UK stands at just under 9% of GDP: one of the highest levels in the world. Conspiracy theories about secret plans to privatise the NHS have been around for decades. I wrote a report on this three years ago, for which I went through the news archives, and I found warnings about the NHS's imminent demise from every year since 1980. But somehow, it never happens. The NHS remains an unusually state-centred system. Most healthcare systems, including tax-funded ones, use a mix of public, private for-profit and private non-profit providers. There are no plans – secret or otherwise – to privatise the NHS. More's the pity. Because there is nothing wrong with private healthcare systems. There are good examples of private, insurance-based healthcare systems, most notably in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are nothing like the dreaded system of the US. These systems cover everybody: poor people are exempt from health insurance premiums and co-payments. Under these systems, rich and poor alike get faster access to medical treatment, and better medical outcomes, than they would on the NHS. The only thing these people don't get is a naff feel-good mythology around their health systems. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
