In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Short CutsLana Spawls
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Vol. 40 No. 12 · 21 June 2018
Short Cuts

Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba

Lana Spawls

On​ the morning of 18 February 2011 Jack Adcock, a six-year-old boy, was brought into Leicester Royal Infirmary with diarrhoea and vomiting. He died eleven hours later. The paediatric registrar looking after him, Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, was convicted in November 2015 of manslaughter by gross negligence, and in January this year she was struck off the medical register. Jack had Down’s syndrome and had previously undergone surgery to repair a congenital heart condition. When he arrived at the infirmary, after 12 hours of D&V, he was described as being unresponsive. Initial blood tests showed high levels of lactate and acid in his blood, which can be the result of shock, a secondary condition in cases of sepsis or dehydration. Bawa-Garba attributed it to dehydration caused by gastroenteritis and treated Jack with IV fluids. His bloods improved (although not back to normal values), he woke up, and he was observed drinking and playing. While waiting for the results of further blood tests and a chest X-ray, Bawa-Garba went to see the many other patients she was responsible for that day, including a baby who needed a lumbar puncture for possible meningitis. Bawa-Garba, who was in her sixth year of specialist training, was doing the work of two doctors, covering the children’s assessment unit (CAU) and referrals from A&E and GPs while the other registrar was away on a training day (no cover had been provided). The on-call consultant for the CAU was not in the hospital until the afternoon. The rest of the team consisted of two far more junior doctors who were beginning their paediatric rotations – one of them spent the whole afternoon on the phone to the laboratory getting blood results because the IT system was down.

The results of the blood tests Bawa-Garba requested when Jack first arrived didn’t come back for six hours because of the IT issues. Bawa-Garba didn’t see the chest X-ray until three hours after it had been done. It showed pneumonia and she prescribed antibiotics. It was a further hour before the antibiotics were administered by the agency nurse Isabel Amaro, who wasn’t trained in paediatrics. She too has been convicted of manslaughter for not adequately monitoring Jack or alerting Bawa-Garba to his deterioration. The prosecution argued that Bawa-Garba hadn’t reviewed the X-ray and blood results quickly enough, that she should have started the antibiotics earlier and should have ‘escalated’ her concerns about Jack to the on-call consultant, Dr Stephen O’Riordan, who was informed of Jack’s case and results at the usual 4.30 p.m. handover but didn’t review him (he has suffered no repercussions). O’Riordan has stated that he wasn’t asked to review Jack, but it would be reasonable to assume that a doctor of his seniority and experience would have made his own assessment of the seriousness of Jack’s condition: a consultant will often review a worrying case without being expressly asked to do so, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recommends a consultant review of every new patient within 12 hours of admission. On the day of Jack’s death, the CAU was so busy that Bawa-Garba worked her 13-hour shift without a break. It is also worth noting that she had only just come back after maternity leave, she was working in a hospital that was new to her and she had received no induction from the trust.

At 7.45 p.m. Jack’s heart stopped and a crash call was put out alerting the medical team, including Bawa-Garba. Forty-five minutes earlier Jack had been given his regular medication, enalapril, a drug used to treat high blood pressure, by his mother. Bawa-Garba had specifically not prescribed the enalapril as it can precipitate cardiac arrest in a patient who already has low blood pressure due to shock (at her trial she was criticised for not making it clear to the mother not to administer it). Resuscitation was started, but briefly stopped because Bawa-Garba thought a ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ order was in place. The inquest ruled that this interruption did not contribute to Jack’s death as his condition was by then too far advanced. Jack was declared dead at 9.20 p.m.

The coroner investigating Jack’s death raised concerns with the police and they questioned Bawa-Garba, but the CPS decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute. After a medical expert witness stated at the inquest that he felt Jack’s death had been preventable, the police reopened their investigation. Four years after Jack’s death, Bawa-Garba was convicted of ‘gross negligence manslaughter’, which is defined as a ‘truly exceptional degree of negligence’. She received a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay £25,000 to the prosecution. In 2017 the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service imposed a 12-month suspension from the medical register, concluding that Bawa-Garba did not pose a continued risk to patients. This was challenged by the General Medical Council in the High Court – an unprecedented move – and the judge agreed to her permanent erasure from the medical register.

Jack’s case raises a number of serious issues for clinicians. Bawa-Garba did not provide exemplary care. She did make mistakes. Perhaps she would not have done so in a fully staffed, supportive environment. It’s worth noting that no other complaints were made about her in the years she worked as a doctor before Jack’s death, or in the four years following it. The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust conducted a 14-person investigation into Jack’s death before her conviction and no single cause was identified. Their report made 23 recommendations, including increased consultant presence on the CAU and a review of the paediatric early warning system that identifies deteriorating patients. At the tribunal, evidence was given regarding the staff shortages, IT failures and the lack of automatic consultant review of sick patients, yet the trust has faced no penalties.

Perhaps it is time for the Department of Health and NHS trusts to take responsibility for making medical staff work in an environment that puts patients at risk, instead of criminalising individuals. Working a fully staffed rota is a rarity nowadays. I have done so for less than two of the last 12 months. A recent survey by the Guardian found that only 2 per cent of healthcare workers think there are always enough staff to provide a safe service for patients. Empty shifts are covered either by agency workers, who may be unfamiliar with the hospital, or by doctors who feel pressured into working extra shifts (and in doing so break their contractual maximum of 72 hours a week). Too often shifts are left unfilled, even for extended periods such as maternity leave, making it impossible to provide the recommended standard of care. If there is no cover the other doctors working that day are expected to manage their colleagues’ work on top of their own, and in cases like Bawa-Garba’s that means one doctor trying to do the work of two.

Doctors make mistakes. In a system working as it should the number of mistakes is minimised. But when the system isn’t working, should doctors go in to work and do their best even though their errors may lead to criminal charges? What does ‘gross negligence’ mean in a health service under such strain? The treatment of Bawa-Garba has troubled the medical community (which has raised £360,000 in donations to help finance her legal efforts) partly because of the precedent it sets in bringing criminal charges against individuals when system failures were a significant factor in the patient’s death. Especially worrying in this respect is the use of Bawa-Garba’s own clinical reflections against her. All doctors record their reflections on serious incidents in their portfolios. We discuss them at meetings. The process allows everyone to learn from mistakes and is an important part of continuing professional development. We have also traditionally understood it as an expression of a culture in which medical errors are not considered in isolation (leading to blame of individual doctors) but as part of a complex system. If doctors’ reflections are used against them it will only encourage them not to discuss mistakes for fear of prosecution. A GP committee has already advised GPs to abstain from writing reflective pieces until adequate safeguards are put in place to protect them. We are moving towards a culture of defensive medicine, which is changing the way that doctors work.

There are concerns too among doctors about the GMC and its determination to strike Bawa-Garba from the medical register against the advice of its own tribunal. The GMC states that its role is to ‘protect patients … by supporting students, doctors, educators and healthcare providers’. Although the Health Service is nationalised, the GMC is funded by doctors, who pay around £400 each year in order to remain on the register. More than half this money is spent investigating complaints about them. It’s important for the public to have faith in the GMC, and in the doctors who care for them, but it is also proper to scrutinise NHS trusts and their failures to maintain public safety. Meanwhile, the Sentencing Council set up by the Ministry of Justice consulted last year on increasing the sentence for convictions of gross negligence manslaughter from a minimum of two years to a minimum of six. Doctors have been warned that no exemptions are being considered.

The case of Jack Adcock highlights systemic failings within the NHS, which seem to get worse every year. Without significant improvements, it is likely we will see an increasing number of cases in which patients are seriously harmed by an overstretched service. From the outside, Bawa-Garba’s mistakes may look exceptional; the courts, and the media, present a straightforward chain of events and point to individual failings. But doctors working in hospitals know that the reality of medicine is not that simple, and that errors, including serious ones, are not rare and are hugely exacerbated by problems with the system in which we work. It is not uncommon for a doctor not to see an X-ray for a few hours if there are many urgent cases. You assume you will be bleeped if a patient is deteriorating. You can’t produce thorough notes when a colleague is away and six people need things from you right away.

For a conviction of gross negligence manslaughter to be secured, the law in England and Wales does not require the demonstration of intent, recklessness or public interest, which sets the bar low for the conviction of healthcare workers. The feeling among doctors is that there is a sharpening focus on individual blame. This damages morale and shows a lack of understanding of our working practices. It will not lead to improvements. In Scotland there is no offence of gross negligence manslaughter and no doctor has been convicted of the nearest equivalent, culpable homicide. Those who are concerned about the use of the charge against doctors are waiting for the reports of two doubtful allies: Jeremy Hunt and the GMC have both promised investigations. Next month Bawa-Garba will appear before the Court of Appeal to fight her removal from the medical register. The hope is that in the future she may also be able to appeal against her manslaughter conviction.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 40 No. 16 · 30 August 2018

Lana Spawls writes about the case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, who was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence over the death of Jack Adcock, a six-year-old boy who was under her care at Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2011 (LRB, 21 June). Bawa-Garba was struck off the medical register in January 2018, though the Court of Appeal very recently overturned that decision. Her case illustrates the way in which, when health systems fail, individual doctors tend to be blamed regardless of whether the blame is merited in full, merited in part, or entirely unjust. Many doctors feel that the legal and regulatory environment in the UK is now such that it is no longer safe for doctors to work there. At least 114 doctors died between 2005 and 2013 while involved in General Medical Council ‘fitness to practise’ proceedings, a significant number by suicide. Those who do survive the proceedings cannot expect the presumption of innocence to be respected on social media, so the trauma and effects will be lifelong even for those who are exonerated.

It does not have to be this way. Legal reform, revised regulatory practices and better fitness to practise procedures can give patients the robust protection they need while also respecting doctors’ presumption of innocence. Most of all, managers and politicians who distribute healthcare resources should be called to fitness to practise hearings so that it can be determined how their decisions were made. If, for example, there was only one vacant bed in a ten-bed critical care unit, why should the doctor be the only one facing interrogation for allocating it to one patient over another, when both patients needed it? Why not ask the manager why there weren’t 11 beds to begin with?

Brendan Kelly
Trinity College Dublin

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.