Aug 23, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
It takes enormous courage to speak out on such a delicate matter when, as usual, the weight of popular opinion is dogmatically against you. Kudos to you both.
I'm still in the early days but what I've so far read leads me to believe that, had I been on the jury, I could not have come to a guilty verdict because, in my view, the case has not been established *beyond reasonable doubt*.
I don't know what they're trying to 'prove' with that attendance chart, but to put it rather crudely, they're picking cherries out of their ass! Of course you can get such a strong association if you *only* focus on the data that shows a strong association. Jeez - it's like Whitty and Vallance and their cherry picking of the covid data all over again.
The fact that this chart wasn't utterly demolished in court (and we'd need to see the *full* data in order to be able to establish anything like a correlation - and, except if your surname is Letby, remember that correlation does not equal causation) further enhances my suspicion that she had an extremely inadequate defence team.
The main piece of damning "evidence" appears to be the notes. They could be interpreted to be a confession, but equally (and probably more likely) they could be the doodlings of someone in extreme distress trying to jot things down to collect her thoughts. It's not like some carefully crafted 'journal' entry, is it?
I've written similar doodlings (although not about anything this serious) in which I've highlighted phrases I'm interested in - but don't necessarily agree with. Take the "I did it on purpose" doodle. Is she confessing, or is she writing something down that in the context of her thinking is "This is what they're saying about me"?
It could be that she is guilty as charged - but in my view that has not been at all well-established by the evidence I've so far seen. It does, as Richard Gill points out, seem to be a potential miscarriage of justice.
Do you really understand the case? Do you know how they reached the 30 deaths figure? I know you haven't looked at it because you wouldn't support it after a few minutes of research.
But wasn't that crystal clear from me stating that I'm in "the early days" of looking at it and I was basing things on what I've seen *so far*?
I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer.
My assessment **at the moment** is that the prosecution's case has not been well-established, but isn't it obvious that I'm coming to a *provisional* assessment here?
It's not clear whether you think I should have come down more firmly on the guilty or innocent side here, but I can only give my opinion based on my current (and incomplete) state of knowledge.
The chart in the article is ludicrous - we need the full list, including ALL child deaths on the ward, in order to see whether there is a suspicious association with shifts - and even if one were to be found we need more than just an association (correlation is not causation). If this kind of chart was used by the prosecution (and I'm assuming it was) then it ought have been trashed for the statistical buffoonery it represents.
But, as you say, I don't fully understand the case - I'm still reading more about it - and there's much I don't understand (like how the deaths in question have been ruled to be unnatural, i.e., murder).
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Norman Fenton, Mr Law, Health and Technology
Thanks for this very thorough series of posts, which are at the very least disturbing, with far too many reasonable questions and lines of enquiry that were not asked, answered or followed. I hope that this matter is not allowed to be lain to rest - as way too many things have been recently.
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
OK, so I can't quite believe I am writing this. I've worked in various legal roles across my career. I can't settle my unease with this case at all. From the experts talking out of their specialised area, to the blatant collusion at points, the details that have come out in cross examination. The down right unprofessional conduct of Dewi on the stand when he deviated from his report, this a professional experienced expert witness (although discredited in a previous case). The inadmissible evidence that I know exists, the arguments that were not made, I have no explanation for. The trial was in legal trouble in December either due to the keystone expert or due to doctors apologising on the stand in regards to leaving baby G unattended behind a screen. I can't work it out. One thing I can do though is offer support via video editing and commentary. Let me know if you would be in need of some help in those areas
Professor Fenton cuts through the fog of innumeracy afflicting the masses, and manages to remain rather kindly toward the untutored while doing so.
It's a surprisingly potent combination and he has aroused the ire of an increasing number of those whose interests are served by their manipulative dishonesty.
Whatever happens to him henceforth, history will remember the good professor as a voice of reason amidst a widespread madness infecting society.
1) The evidence against nurse Lucy Letby is purely circumstantial.
2) Recently qualified junior doctors in charge of the premature baby ward are equally guilty in that case, especially when some of them were incompetent in inserting catheters.
3) Leaks from the sewage lines in the false ceiling above the baby ward were a more likely cause of infections leading to the baby deaths.
4) The so called expert witness called to give evidence by the prosecution was not an expert in neo natal baby deaths. He was a tout who was highly paid.
5) As pointed out by her colleagues, nurse Lucy Letby was of exemplary character. She was railroaded by nasty sociopathic lawyers, who had to find a victim to justify their parasitic existence..
I didn't follow the case, didn't realise these were all preterm tiny babies and poorly sick on the edges of life. The pathologist found all 6 died of natural causes? And a so called expert witness isn't in the specialist field? Dear God. Sounds to me more like doctor incompetence and they targeted the nurse who stood up to them and saw what they did. Consultant retired and the death rate drops? Really?
Attached science article which, if accurate, raises deep concerns.
I have to admit to being distressed at the terrifying possibility that we aren't looking at the face of a monster, but a deeply traumatised and confused young lady being taken apart in front of us piece by piece. This could be any young lady you happen to meet who just got mixed up in the wrong situation.
If she didn't do it, its haunting and sickening that her very innocence is likely the key thing ravaging her mind and it only being salvageable by taking responsibility for the entire world being against her because in her mind, she just wasn't good enough.
This seems to line up as her way of thinking and it would in some way work things out to her so she can make sense of this deeply shocking situation. And that line of thinking is going to destroy her. My god.
Let's not forget that the UK gov and ruling party desperately need stories like this to distract attention away from vaccine harms, MHRA malfeasance, NHS being defunded, hollowed out and largely privatized over the past 13 years of Conservative party. Blaming this young blonde woman who looks like so many of our NHS nursing staff shifts attention far away from the fact that the prenatal unit in Countess of Chester Hospital had serious plumbing problems with water from pipes carrying sewage as has been raised in this post but avoided in the trial by the defense.
Based on what Dr McLachlan has presented on Child A, B, C & D there was insufficient evidence to connect Lucy Letby with any actions that would cause harm through incompetence or negligence, not to mention deliberate actions with malice of forethought.
Perhaps some question marks about record keeping and the timing of drug delivery but little else that didn't also apply to other members of staff in that unit too.
That she has been convicted of the murder of these babies is quite extraordinary.
1. Dr Lachlan, methinks you are being too kind to Ben Myers KC. At a minimum he failed to impress the jury and the judge. Not sure how it works but I thought that the judge could direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty, because he must have seen how weak the circumstantial evidence was himself.
2. Dr Lachlan, I can tell from the discussion with Prof Fenton that microbiology is a bit outside your comfort zone, all the more reason to compliment you on LL Part 3, and the other very impressive posts on that subject.
It is important for people to understand that this case is reflective of a dilapidated NHS, albeit still a national sacred cow. Managing the utilities in a hospital is one of the most important activities there is;
water, steam, waste water, cleaning, sanitising, sterilising and ventilation will determine how patients are exposed to infection from their surroundings, patients and staff.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a very common water borne bacterium, that you in fact find in your tap water any day of the week. The question is are they being kept at a safe level. Healthy adults would easily cope with them but the sick and most vulnerable not so well. I wont elaborate further as you have covered enough, save to say the biofilms are not necessarily visible so the surface can look clean, but actually has microscopic pathogens present, so you HAVE TO TEST.
But it would be good if we could find out what microbiology testing was done concerning Child A, B, C and D as well as environmental testing of the units, the staff and the equipment and instrumentation. So far I have not seen microbiology results reported anywhere on Substack or reddit unless I missed it. My expectation of NHS hospitals in this regard is very low (COVID experience) and I suspect that the status of a unit with weekly waste water issues to be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain in a sanitary state.
Any hospital in the world that has been under funded, with poor infrastructure, weak medical leadership and weak administration, will have high nosocomial infection rates. The Countess of Chester NHS Trust is not the exception, other have been lucky and others still not so lucky. Several doctors have posted on X in the last number of years a Trust ranking by level of nosocomial infections and they are just getting worse and worse. Clinical directors and hospital medical microbiologists have APPROVED steps that HARM infection control. That is WILFUL negligence on a grand scale.
This is all symptomatic of the governance of England. An absolute sh**show.
3. Finally Dr McLachlan can you include with your analysis whether the Babies Lucy Letby is accused of killing had a post mortem examination and its findings if available. From what I have heard 90% had a "natural causes" finding.
Several years ago I was considered "normal". After the birth of my 3rd child I had postnatal depression. Left undetected I was eventually labelled with severe depression because of that.
20yrs on it's still raw at times.
During a better day but still very ill I made like a child 2 collagues, one of things I liked and the other of things I hate.I spent the day cutting and sticking various items to the paper. On the hate I had pictures of people cut from photos I had. People I knew.
I still have these as a reminder of how far I've come.
If people tell you enough your a bad person in an already fragile state you start to believe them.
Her notes were not found till after her 3rd arrest which by then her mental health would have been shot to pieces. They've manipulated it to be way more sinister than it is to try and make a fact.
Did those doctors she had a grievance with start the chinese whispers which then snowballed to where we're at now ? The same doctors who now look like heroes ?
This isn't a case solved it's a witch hunt and will continue with another Lucy Letby elsewhere
My first two children where twins, born at 30wks spending several weeks in the neonatal unit. I've realised reading threw these notes the quality of care they and myself received over two decades ago was far more than is available now.
i havd been uneasy from the start with this. I don t live in the UK and am not british.
Still, i have had during my life many contact with health practitionners and the law.
It seems to me to be a cover up. Perhaps negligences and incompetences.
Insurance companies ( monney) will always back up consultants etc against patients or even nurses.
It is a small world were "highs" in the hierarchy are very well connected with each other.
Further i would ask ; is it not possible to" Gofundme" for an appeal trial as the girl has no money. There must be at least some people who doubt and want a fair trial for the girl
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Hi, I recently discovered your blog and I have shared some of your analysis with friends however many have pointed out that she wrote a confession claiming to have killed some of the babies. My response has been that maybe she did but that doesn’t mean she killed all of them which means there are unanswered questions about the deaths of the other children I.e negligence of the trust. It’s not unheard of.
Critical appraisal of what Lucy wrote tends towards it being a combination of reflective journaling and self-flaggelation (beating oneself up). While the prosecution focused on a couple of words here or there to claim it could be interpreted as a confession, it certainly did not meet the standard of a confession when taken in context to the content of the notes they showed. She was clearly saying "I must have done this because I am not a good enough nurse" in the way that some people will go "if only I had reacted faster, learned more, been a better nurse or doctor I might have been able to save this patient." Note that there was mention that police found hundreds of such reflective journal notes, but they only presented and focused on a very small few (mainly a green one) in court. It would be useful to see all of the other notes in order to get a view into her journaling aproach and state of mind as the situation developed.
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Have you actually seen and read it? I have. In the first half she says "I haven't done anything wrong". She then goes on to say things like "I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough". This is after several times saying she wants to take her own life. The note is written in the scrawl of a deranged person, clearly under immense duress, trying to justify the actions against her in her own, very fragile mind (in my opinion). It is as much full of remorse as it is with admission of guilt. Neither the hallmarks of a psychopath?
Re: "Neither the hallmarks of a psychopath?" Indeed a psychopath would never have written such a note blaming themselves. I have worked with a psychopath - it's always someone else's fault with them.
I haven't watched the entire talk yet, but this stands out for me: 'During that period [2015/16] the hospital upgraded their unit so they could keep some of the more severe, more sickly [extremely premature] babies [which prior to that would have been referred to a more specialist unit].'
This one statement should set alarm bells ringing like mad.
The whole of the National Health Service is collectively responsible for these neo natal baby deaths from top to bottom, that includes Westminster, the administrators who had responsibility for keeping the wards clean and germ free, and the incompetent junior doctors who lack small motor coordination, who should not be doctors in the first place, but it is junior nurses who always take the blame, because that are the least able to defend themselves against the gas lighters and soulless predatory lawyers.
In the UK, at least 22, 000 patients die from medical errors, but how many doctors are charged with manslaughter ? but a single nurse can take the blame for the whole fucking lot of them ?
It takes enormous courage to speak out on such a delicate matter when, as usual, the weight of popular opinion is dogmatically against you. Kudos to you both.
Thanks Joel.
A reader of mine asked me to check this case out.
I'm still in the early days but what I've so far read leads me to believe that, had I been on the jury, I could not have come to a guilty verdict because, in my view, the case has not been established *beyond reasonable doubt*.
I don't know what they're trying to 'prove' with that attendance chart, but to put it rather crudely, they're picking cherries out of their ass! Of course you can get such a strong association if you *only* focus on the data that shows a strong association. Jeez - it's like Whitty and Vallance and their cherry picking of the covid data all over again.
The fact that this chart wasn't utterly demolished in court (and we'd need to see the *full* data in order to be able to establish anything like a correlation - and, except if your surname is Letby, remember that correlation does not equal causation) further enhances my suspicion that she had an extremely inadequate defence team.
The main piece of damning "evidence" appears to be the notes. They could be interpreted to be a confession, but equally (and probably more likely) they could be the doodlings of someone in extreme distress trying to jot things down to collect her thoughts. It's not like some carefully crafted 'journal' entry, is it?
I've written similar doodlings (although not about anything this serious) in which I've highlighted phrases I'm interested in - but don't necessarily agree with. Take the "I did it on purpose" doodle. Is she confessing, or is she writing something down that in the context of her thinking is "This is what they're saying about me"?
It could be that she is guilty as charged - but in my view that has not been at all well-established by the evidence I've so far seen. It does, as Richard Gill points out, seem to be a potential miscarriage of justice.
I agree with you about context regarding the note. It seems to me that she saying 'This is what they are saying about me'
Do you really understand the case? Do you know how they reached the 30 deaths figure? I know you haven't looked at it because you wouldn't support it after a few minutes of research.
No, I don't fully understand the case.
But wasn't that crystal clear from me stating that I'm in "the early days" of looking at it and I was basing things on what I've seen *so far*?
I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer.
My assessment **at the moment** is that the prosecution's case has not been well-established, but isn't it obvious that I'm coming to a *provisional* assessment here?
It's not clear whether you think I should have come down more firmly on the guilty or innocent side here, but I can only give my opinion based on my current (and incomplete) state of knowledge.
The chart in the article is ludicrous - we need the full list, including ALL child deaths on the ward, in order to see whether there is a suspicious association with shifts - and even if one were to be found we need more than just an association (correlation is not causation). If this kind of chart was used by the prosecution (and I'm assuming it was) then it ought have been trashed for the statistical buffoonery it represents.
But, as you say, I don't fully understand the case - I'm still reading more about it - and there's much I don't understand (like how the deaths in question have been ruled to be unnatural, i.e., murder).
Thanks for this very thorough series of posts, which are at the very least disturbing, with far too many reasonable questions and lines of enquiry that were not asked, answered or followed. I hope that this matter is not allowed to be lain to rest - as way too many things have been recently.
OK, so I can't quite believe I am writing this. I've worked in various legal roles across my career. I can't settle my unease with this case at all. From the experts talking out of their specialised area, to the blatant collusion at points, the details that have come out in cross examination. The down right unprofessional conduct of Dewi on the stand when he deviated from his report, this a professional experienced expert witness (although discredited in a previous case). The inadmissible evidence that I know exists, the arguments that were not made, I have no explanation for. The trial was in legal trouble in December either due to the keystone expert or due to doctors apologising on the stand in regards to leaving baby G unattended behind a screen. I can't work it out. One thing I can do though is offer support via video editing and commentary. Let me know if you would be in need of some help in those areas
Thank you for this very measured and well laid out discussion.
Professor Fenton cuts through the fog of innumeracy afflicting the masses, and manages to remain rather kindly toward the untutored while doing so.
It's a surprisingly potent combination and he has aroused the ire of an increasing number of those whose interests are served by their manipulative dishonesty.
Whatever happens to him henceforth, history will remember the good professor as a voice of reason amidst a widespread madness infecting society.
1) The evidence against nurse Lucy Letby is purely circumstantial.
2) Recently qualified junior doctors in charge of the premature baby ward are equally guilty in that case, especially when some of them were incompetent in inserting catheters.
3) Leaks from the sewage lines in the false ceiling above the baby ward were a more likely cause of infections leading to the baby deaths.
4) The so called expert witness called to give evidence by the prosecution was not an expert in neo natal baby deaths. He was a tout who was highly paid.
5) As pointed out by her colleagues, nurse Lucy Letby was of exemplary character. She was railroaded by nasty sociopathic lawyers, who had to find a victim to justify their parasitic existence..
Definitely not guilty in my opinion.
I didn't follow the case, didn't realise these were all preterm tiny babies and poorly sick on the edges of life. The pathologist found all 6 died of natural causes? And a so called expert witness isn't in the specialist field? Dear God. Sounds to me more like doctor incompetence and they targeted the nurse who stood up to them and saw what they did. Consultant retired and the death rate drops? Really?
Attached science article which, if accurate, raises deep concerns.
https://rexvlucyletby2023.com
Nothing much changes.
https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/06/27/monty-python-witch-trial-validity-soundness-and-the-fallacy-of-the-undistributed-middle/
I have to admit to being distressed at the terrifying possibility that we aren't looking at the face of a monster, but a deeply traumatised and confused young lady being taken apart in front of us piece by piece. This could be any young lady you happen to meet who just got mixed up in the wrong situation.
If she didn't do it, its haunting and sickening that her very innocence is likely the key thing ravaging her mind and it only being salvageable by taking responsibility for the entire world being against her because in her mind, she just wasn't good enough.
This seems to line up as her way of thinking and it would in some way work things out to her so she can make sense of this deeply shocking situation. And that line of thinking is going to destroy her. My god.
Something has to be done.
There needs to be a crowdfund for her to appeal. If that's possible.
Let's not forget that the UK gov and ruling party desperately need stories like this to distract attention away from vaccine harms, MHRA malfeasance, NHS being defunded, hollowed out and largely privatized over the past 13 years of Conservative party. Blaming this young blonde woman who looks like so many of our NHS nursing staff shifts attention far away from the fact that the prenatal unit in Countess of Chester Hospital had serious plumbing problems with water from pipes carrying sewage as has been raised in this post but avoided in the trial by the defense.
Based on what Dr McLachlan has presented on Child A, B, C & D there was insufficient evidence to connect Lucy Letby with any actions that would cause harm through incompetence or negligence, not to mention deliberate actions with malice of forethought.
Perhaps some question marks about record keeping and the timing of drug delivery but little else that didn't also apply to other members of staff in that unit too.
That she has been convicted of the murder of these babies is quite extraordinary.
1. Dr Lachlan, methinks you are being too kind to Ben Myers KC. At a minimum he failed to impress the jury and the judge. Not sure how it works but I thought that the judge could direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty, because he must have seen how weak the circumstantial evidence was himself.
2. Dr Lachlan, I can tell from the discussion with Prof Fenton that microbiology is a bit outside your comfort zone, all the more reason to compliment you on LL Part 3, and the other very impressive posts on that subject.
It is important for people to understand that this case is reflective of a dilapidated NHS, albeit still a national sacred cow. Managing the utilities in a hospital is one of the most important activities there is;
water, steam, waste water, cleaning, sanitising, sterilising and ventilation will determine how patients are exposed to infection from their surroundings, patients and staff.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a very common water borne bacterium, that you in fact find in your tap water any day of the week. The question is are they being kept at a safe level. Healthy adults would easily cope with them but the sick and most vulnerable not so well. I wont elaborate further as you have covered enough, save to say the biofilms are not necessarily visible so the surface can look clean, but actually has microscopic pathogens present, so you HAVE TO TEST.
But it would be good if we could find out what microbiology testing was done concerning Child A, B, C and D as well as environmental testing of the units, the staff and the equipment and instrumentation. So far I have not seen microbiology results reported anywhere on Substack or reddit unless I missed it. My expectation of NHS hospitals in this regard is very low (COVID experience) and I suspect that the status of a unit with weekly waste water issues to be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain in a sanitary state.
Any hospital in the world that has been under funded, with poor infrastructure, weak medical leadership and weak administration, will have high nosocomial infection rates. The Countess of Chester NHS Trust is not the exception, other have been lucky and others still not so lucky. Several doctors have posted on X in the last number of years a Trust ranking by level of nosocomial infections and they are just getting worse and worse. Clinical directors and hospital medical microbiologists have APPROVED steps that HARM infection control. That is WILFUL negligence on a grand scale.
This is all symptomatic of the governance of England. An absolute sh**show.
3. Finally Dr McLachlan can you include with your analysis whether the Babies Lucy Letby is accused of killing had a post mortem examination and its findings if available. From what I have heard 90% had a "natural causes" finding.
Just noticed I miss-spelled your name :-( oops!
No malice of forethought, honestly. Better next time.
Several years ago I was considered "normal". After the birth of my 3rd child I had postnatal depression. Left undetected I was eventually labelled with severe depression because of that.
20yrs on it's still raw at times.
During a better day but still very ill I made like a child 2 collagues, one of things I liked and the other of things I hate.I spent the day cutting and sticking various items to the paper. On the hate I had pictures of people cut from photos I had. People I knew.
I still have these as a reminder of how far I've come.
If people tell you enough your a bad person in an already fragile state you start to believe them.
Her notes were not found till after her 3rd arrest which by then her mental health would have been shot to pieces. They've manipulated it to be way more sinister than it is to try and make a fact.
Did those doctors she had a grievance with start the chinese whispers which then snowballed to where we're at now ? The same doctors who now look like heroes ?
This isn't a case solved it's a witch hunt and will continue with another Lucy Letby elsewhere
My first two children where twins, born at 30wks spending several weeks in the neonatal unit. I've realised reading threw these notes the quality of care they and myself received over two decades ago was far more than is available now.
i havd been uneasy from the start with this. I don t live in the UK and am not british.
Still, i have had during my life many contact with health practitionners and the law.
It seems to me to be a cover up. Perhaps negligences and incompetences.
Insurance companies ( monney) will always back up consultants etc against patients or even nurses.
It is a small world were "highs" in the hierarchy are very well connected with each other.
Further i would ask ; is it not possible to" Gofundme" for an appeal trial as the girl has no money. There must be at least some people who doubt and want a fair trial for the girl
I would. It's all I can offer.
Hi, I recently discovered your blog and I have shared some of your analysis with friends however many have pointed out that she wrote a confession claiming to have killed some of the babies. My response has been that maybe she did but that doesn’t mean she killed all of them which means there are unanswered questions about the deaths of the other children I.e negligence of the trust. It’s not unheard of.
I am wondering what you think about this?
Critical appraisal of what Lucy wrote tends towards it being a combination of reflective journaling and self-flaggelation (beating oneself up). While the prosecution focused on a couple of words here or there to claim it could be interpreted as a confession, it certainly did not meet the standard of a confession when taken in context to the content of the notes they showed. She was clearly saying "I must have done this because I am not a good enough nurse" in the way that some people will go "if only I had reacted faster, learned more, been a better nurse or doctor I might have been able to save this patient." Note that there was mention that police found hundreds of such reflective journal notes, but they only presented and focused on a very small few (mainly a green one) in court. It would be useful to see all of the other notes in order to get a view into her journaling aproach and state of mind as the situation developed.
Thanks for your reply. I was a social worker and we use reflective practice so this makes sense to me.
Have you actually seen and read it? I have. In the first half she says "I haven't done anything wrong". She then goes on to say things like "I killed them on purpose because I am not good enough". This is after several times saying she wants to take her own life. The note is written in the scrawl of a deranged person, clearly under immense duress, trying to justify the actions against her in her own, very fragile mind (in my opinion). It is as much full of remorse as it is with admission of guilt. Neither the hallmarks of a psychopath?
About as valid as a confession signed by a woman accused of witchcraft.
Re: "Neither the hallmarks of a psychopath?" Indeed a psychopath would never have written such a note blaming themselves. I have worked with a psychopath - it's always someone else's fault with them.
Lucy Letby did not confess to killing of premature neo natal babies, she mistakenly accepted responsibility just because she was there.
I haven't watched the entire talk yet, but this stands out for me: 'During that period [2015/16] the hospital upgraded their unit so they could keep some of the more severe, more sickly [extremely premature] babies [which prior to that would have been referred to a more specialist unit].'
This one statement should set alarm bells ringing like mad.
The whole of the National Health Service is collectively responsible for these neo natal baby deaths from top to bottom, that includes Westminster, the administrators who had responsibility for keeping the wards clean and germ free, and the incompetent junior doctors who lack small motor coordination, who should not be doctors in the first place, but it is junior nurses who always take the blame, because that are the least able to defend themselves against the gas lighters and soulless predatory lawyers.
In the UK, at least 22, 000 patients die from medical errors, but how many doctors are charged with manslaughter ? but a single nurse can take the blame for the whole fucking lot of them ?