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

OUR RESPONSE
You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 3rd December 2024. I, the Coroner, may extend the period
I’m confused. The Times report says: “However, the coroner’s recommendations are not legally enforceable and at a hearing last month Archer said that she had issued reports in other cases but that ‘nothing was done’”.

Does anyone know the legal situation? Is the “duty to respond” not a legal duty? @Valerie Eliot Smith
 
Last edited:
I've just popped in from a six month absence due to severe PEM to let you all know that I have written to my MP. Wasn't sure where to post it, as it covers the missing report summarising the responses from the My Reality consultation a year ago, the Coroner's Regulation 28 Prevention of future deaths report and questions to be raised on my behalf to the Secretary of State for Health in the House of Commons. So I decided to post it in this thread out of respect for Maeve Boothby-O'Neill.

Here is the content of my letter to my MP mailed this evening:
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1728354760604.jpg
    FB_IMG_1728354760604.jpg
    121.5 KB · Views: 32
I've just popped in from a six month absence due to severe PEM to let you all know that I have written to my MP. Wasn't sure where to post it, as it covers the missing report summarising the responses from the My Reality consultation a year ago, the Coroner's Regulation 28 Prevention of future deaths report and questions to be raised on my behalf to the Secretary of State for Health in the House of Commons. So I decided to post it in this thread out of respect for Maeve Boothby-O'Neill.

Here is the content of my letter to my MP mailed this evening:

Thank you and bless you for this.
It's so overwhelming and sad.
I feel your pain.

Let's hope your MP does too.
 
My understanding was that there was a legal duty just to respond - although a respondent can also, for example, explain why they believe no action need be taken. From the Chief Coroner's guidance:
49. A person or organisation must respond within 56 days, or longer if the coroner grants an extension (Regulation 29(4) and (5)).

50. A response must detail the action taken or to be taken, whether in response to the report or otherwise, and the timetable for it, or it must explain why no action is proposed (Regulation 29(3)).
Here's a link to Reg 28/29. And the guidance on the publication of responses:
58. The Chief Coroner may publish a report or a response, or part of one or in a redacted or summarised form (Regulations 28(5)(a) and 29(7)(a)).

59. A person or organisation giving a response to a PFD may make representations to the coroner about the release or publication of their response (Regulation 29(8)). Representations must be passed by the coroner to the Chief Coroner (Regulation 29(10)).
Checking the public archive of PFD reports, and looking back a few months, I see that a number of responses from various NHS trusts, councils & other bodies have been made public in a variety of different cases. For example, a number of detailed responses were made public in regard to the Ofsted-related case (CW) from last year which also attracted significant media attention.

NHS England has a webpage about how they handle PFDs submitted to them.

As for today's print media, in addition to the Times story there are also these in the Guardian and Telegraph (ETA: fixed last image)

guardian_08oct24.jpgtelegraph_08oct24.jpgtimes_08oct24.jpgtimes_08oct24_p5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some more information on who has access to the Coroner's section 28 report and the responses to her questions

From the Coroner's report, AnnexeA


REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTUREDEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1. Andrew Gwynne / Wes Streeting Department of Health and Social care
2. NHS England
3. NICE
4. Medical Research Council
5. National Institute for Health care and Research
6. Medical Schools Council





8.COPIES and PUBLICATION


I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons – Mr. Sean O’Neill, Ms Sarah Boothby, Barnfield Surgery,Devon County Council, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust. I have also sent it to the ME Association, Dr Michael March, NHS Southwest England and Steve Moore, Chief Executive of the Integrated Health Board, who may find it useful or of interest.

I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it.


I may also send a copy of your response to any other person who I believe mayfind it useful or of interest.


The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest.

You may make representations to me, the Coroner, at the time of your response,about the release or the publication of your response.


9

7th October 2024 Deborah Archer.
edit: my bolding
 
Last edited:
Sonya is excellent as usual.

The piece by Fiona Hamilton is well worth listening to and for a general media journalist she gives a useful account. It is interesting though that she repeats the implication given by the coroner that somehow the problem was not knowing how to treat ME/CFS. There seems to be an idea that 'ME' itself is a progressive fatal condition and that since we do not know how to treat it nobody knew how to keep Maeve alive. Which is of course not the case. The doctors knew how to keep Maeve alive. For sure, the bigger background problem is that we cannot teat ME/CFS itself and stop people getting into this situation but does not justify any suggestion that for he time being nothing more could have been done.
 
Care for people with severe ME is “nonexistent,” says coroner in call to action | The BMJ
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2202 (Published 08 October 2024)


“The inquest heard that provision of care for patients with severe ME such as that which Maeve suffered from was and is nonexistent and that being placed on a ward that did not have expertise in her condition made her admission to hospital very difficult for her to endure,” said Archer, assistant coroner for the county of Devon, Plymouth, and Torbay.

She added, “During the course of the evidence it became clear that there were no specialist hospitals or hospices, beds, wards or other healthcare provision in England for patients with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). This meant that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital had no commissioned service to treat Maeve and patients like her.”

It also became clear, Archer said, that “there was no current available funding for the research and development of treatment and further learning for understanding the causes of ME” and “extremely limited training for doctors on ME/CFS and how to treat it—especially in relation to severe ME.”

In addition, the 2021 NICE guidance on ME did not provide “any detailed guidance at all on how severe ME should be managed at home or in the community and in particular whether or not there is any necessary adaptation needed to the 2017 guidance on nutrition support for adults: oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition.”
 
Reg 28 to NHS England .....

'Non-executive directors (NEDs) in the NHS are responsible for challenging the executive directors' strategy and decision-making.

They are also accountable for the trust's performance and the exercise of their powers, along with the executive directors. '


So, Simon and chair, Richard, Meddings of NEDs, what are you going to do about it?
 
Reg 28 to NHS England .....

'Non-executive directors (NEDs) in the NHS are responsible for challenging the executive directors' strategy and decision-making.

They are also accountable for the trust's performance and the exercise of their powers, along with the executive directors. '


So, Simon and chair, Richard, Meddings of NEDs, what are you going to do about it?
 
Back
Top Bottom