Maeve Boothby O'Neill - articles about her life, death and inquest

It’s moved on to social services evidence.

Lack of DCC services did not cause death - coroner (via Paul Keeble)

Coroner did not find any Consultants didn’t believe it was a real disease. Impressed by their compassion.

IMG_3004.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Death by Malnutrition at home, due to ME
IMG_3007.jpeg


I’m off for a rest, it should be hitting the news soon. I’ll try to do a write up of tweets tomorrow.

Points of interest in Aug/Sept after 3rd discharge Dr Roy asking for psych assessment and admission and Dr Shenton calling paramedics who couldn’t do anything for Maeve, DR Strain’s view that TPN would “keep some alive, but not living” he would now think differently.
 
I listened to it all. A great deal of time was spent summarising testimony already given. I once again took extensive notes if anyone has specific questions.

She made a small number of findings relating to Dr Weir's testimony; she rejected his view over blood volume (preferring Prague on that one) but accepted his views on anaerobic threshold. She stated that she saw no signs of the psychological "dogma" amongst the RD&E witnesses; I certainly did, but then she is a lawyer and presumably unfamiliar with the subtleties of medical evasions and obfuscations. The RD&E legal strategy - and there was a strategy, I am certain - worked perfectly. There were no adverse findings against individual trust members; no finding of neglect. While regretting that she had not heard from the lead DCC witness, Julia Hill, due to "illness", she also had no complaints to make about their conduct or testimony either; my own view of the DCC witnesses was quite different.

As has already been said the verdict was death by natural causes (malnutrition resulting from ME).

Hemsley is due to appear at 10 AM on 27 September.
 
Last edited:
Nightsong said:
I listened to it all. A great deal of time was spent summarising testimony already given. I once again took extensive notes if anyone has specific questions.

She made a small number of findings relating to Dr Weir's testimony; she rejected his view over blood volume (preferring Prague on that one) but accepted his views on anaerobic threshold. She stated that she saw no signs of the psychological "dogma" amongst the RD&E witnesses; I certainly did, but then she is a lawyer and presumably unfamiliar with the subtleties of medical evasions and obfuscations. The RD&E legal strategy - and there was a strategy, I am certain - worked perfectly. There were no adverse findings against individual trust members. While regretting that she had not heard from the lead DCC witness, Julia Hill, due to "illness", she also had no complaints to make about their conduct or testimony either; my own view of the DCC witnesses was quite different.

As has already been said the verdict was death by natural causes (malnutrition resulting from ME).

Hemsley is due to appear at 10 AM on 27 September.

I really don't feel like I should be online right now, so I shall leave it there.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this update - take care of yourself :heart:
 
Nightsong said:
She stated that she saw no signs of the psychological "dogma" amongst the RD&E witnesses; I certainly did, but then she is a lawyer and presumably unfamiliar with the subtleties of medical evasions and obfuscations.
Click to expand...
Nearly all of the witnesses were asked if they believed ME was a physical or psychological illness.

They all replied that they believed ME was a real illness.

Some of them then went on to say there was no known aetiology. But none of them were then presented with the next question which would have directed them back to whether they thought it was physical or psychological.

So they each managed to side step the question and nothing more was said. It seemed a glaring issue to me but the coroner was obviously satisfied with what she had been told.

In another article discussing how coroners courts work it stood out to me that the people who are essentially defending themselves are also being used as the expert witnesses. There are no attempts to use independent experts to give an alternative viewpoint.
(Dr Weir was not there as as expert but to give evidence about his involvement in the case)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom