"we may as well be taking double-Dutch as none of the doctors have a clue what we are talking about as junior's condition is beyond their knowledge and expertise"

flamin' 'ell, Dally not only are you a top economist, a political guru, and the mouth piece of sensible people, but you are a medical consultant as well.

Hats off to you ... you know more than people who have studied and practiced medicine for over 6 years.

It's a fact I'm afraid. But that's because most doctors are either generalists (who do not have relevant specialism) or specialists in other fields. What is disappointing though is when young hospital doctors have not heard of a VNS device. I can understand people who trained years ago. I have resolved not to explain it again to a doctor. They could try Google or Wiki rather than me!

Mind you the young doctor on Saturday somewhat lacked observational skills. Blood was pouring from a deep, wide cut and she wanted to try to clean junior up to see where the blood was coming from! When I pointed the bleeding (literally) obvious out she was of the opinion it was an indentation rather than a cut! I kid you not.

like in all fields with humans: variations, successes and failures.

I can relate (from my few but serious occasions with the medics) bad and good: people only want to hear the bad.

You asked a question about my daughter's condition and doctors. No doctor short of a consultant and even then a consultant with specialism will make any decision about her. It's left to us and the consultants. GP won't. Local hospital won't. Top consultants are wise enough to state that we are the experts about her and advise us to try to steer clear of A&E's where possible!

Ah Dally, you're coming out as the sort of muppet who I deal with regularly now.

I work with (amongst others) people with Autism and the amount of parents, and other important others for that matter, who think that it's a 'one cap fits all' condition is unbelievable, and they all think they know better because they've read up on it.

Have you ever considered that you may actually be wrong and that professionals actually know what they're doing?

I know b****r all about it. But that's more than most doctors, who either look blank or ask you what you mean. Those are the facts.

As to the hospitals on Saturday, the more I think about it the more disgraceful it is:

Two hospitals with enormous resources take about 11 hours to do nothing and actually cause some modest harm. Not only that but they did not advise us what to do about changing the (wrong) dressing etc. As it happens we could not have removed it, it took a trained nurse half an hour. Good job her school, with less resources, are more competent.

I'm glad you're able to diagnose problems just by looking at people. You must be some sort of savant.


I'm also glad you're able to determine the cause of injury too. I presume when I presented at A&E a few years back with my face sliced wide open you'd have leapt to a similar conclusion. Fortunately, triage doesn't determine how you came to be injured, but adheres to the principle of each according to their need.


The pointlessness of this particularly archetypal rubbish from you would normally be brushed aside as it's obvious nonsense. It's the "sic" at the end which raises it to the level of 'waaah waaah I'm an opressed minority in my own country' right-wing filth. Explain which ethnic groups are greater in number than those that identify as 'white British'.
Not that it makes a bit of difference in terms of the treatment anyone is about to get. There are issues with medical professionals leaving and the NHS having to look further afield for recruits which also has knock-on effects from those regions where staff are being recruited from, but that's an argument of the pyramid scheme nature of global capitalism and not the state of your local A&E department.

1. Pretty easy to see who is in pain and who is not.
2. The point I was making that triage at many A&E's does not. It will take account of the obvious cases of immediate threat to life but the rest (even with threat to life) are lumped together.
3. The hospital in question was in London and very probably the minority nationally speaking were in the majority locally.

So you actually know the specific method that triage nurses use to prioritise patients in "many A&E"'s do you? I'm impressed. I won't ask you to reveal where you got this information, but perhaps you could quote the official triage methods in use at just one specific hospital A&E which to your knowledge has a triage system that does not, in fact, triage whatsoever but just places people in a straight queue without any regard at all to the nature of their problem.

I am familiar with the method used at Bradford Royal Infirmary, where most certainly each case is individually and carefully assessed, and given a priority based on the triage assessment. Maybe BRI is unique, though?