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

Jonathan Edwards said:
What hits me about Sean O'Neill's account is the complicity of the legal profession in denying ordinary people justice. I have a neighbour and friend who is a King's Council (and a Dame). I have texted her to ask for her opinion.
Click to expand...
Your blanket loathing of the legal profession is very disappointing, Jonathan, and it does you no credit.

Getting formal pro bono representation is very, very difficult for a number of reasons (too long for here). The legal profession is currently engaged in a battle for improved access to legal aid for both those seeking and those providing legal services. The current system is in crisis, along with most other public services.

The legal profession would be delighted if legal aid was available universally for "interested persons" at inquests (eg. Sarah and Sean) but that only happens in very limited circumstances. That is not the fault of lawyers who are as critical of this unfair system as anyone (and it doesn't just impact inquests but every other branch of the legal process too).

I know of many lawyers who give freely of their time and expertise for no payment. That has always been the case. However, providing pro bono representation at eg. Maeve's inquest would have been a massive undertaking, given the enormous number of documents and length of the hearings. It is a service which very few suitable lawyers would have felt able to undertake for free alongside their other commitments.

A grossly unfair system? Yes. The "complicity of the legal profession in denying ordinary people justice"? Absolutely not.

ETA: Many people have had bad experiences with lawyers (including me). As with doctors, that does not make them representative of the entire profession.
 
Last edited:
We disagree, Valerie, I guess. The legal aid issue I see as largely a red herring. The injustice in the inquest goes much deeper than that, as in the Post Office case.

I am very happy to admit that the medical profession is just as bad in certain respects but perhaps not at this level of denying access to what it is one is purporting to be supplying.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
We disagree, Valerie, I guess. The legal aid issue I see as largely a red herring. The injustice in the inquest goes much deeper than that, as in the Post Office case.

I am very happy to admit that the medical profession is just as bad in certain respects but perhaps not at this level of denying access to what it is one is purporting to be supplying.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between lawyers and the legal system, just as doctors are not synonymous with the health service.
 
Suffolkres said:
Might need to pull some influently strings?

Would be good to some important offers of 'networking' in place?

I need to type up Dr Adrian Hemsely's 20 important identified wish/ to does from theReg 28 report Friday 7th October 2024.
A good man....
Click to expand...

Following up on the current debate about the dire situation of Specialist ME services. I came across this useful document about driving change.

https://nhsproviders.org/resources/...strategies-for-addressing-health-inequalities
 
Valerie Eliot Smith said:
Your blanket loathing of the legal profession is very disappointing, Jonathan, and it does you no credit.

Getting formal pro bono representation is very, very difficult for a number of reasons (too long for here). The legal profession is currently engaged in a battle for improved access to legal aid for both those seeking and those providing legal services. The current system is in crisis, along with most other public services.

The legal profession would be delighted if legal aid was available universally for "interested persons" at inquests (eg. Sarah and Sean) but that only happens in very limited circumstances. That is not the fault of lawyers who are as critical of this unfair system as anyone (and it doesn't just impact inquests but every other branch of the legal process too).

I know of many lawyers who give freely of their time and expertise for no payment. That has always been the case. However, providing pro bono representation at eg. Maeve's inquest would have been a massive undertaking, given the enormous number of documents and length of the hearings. It is a service which very few suitable lawyers would have felt able to undertake for free alongside their other commitments.

A grossly unfair system? Yes. The "complicity of the legal profession in denying ordinary people justice"? Absolutely not.

ETA: Many people have had bad experiences with lawyers (including me). As with doctors, that does not make them representative of the entire profession.
Click to expand...
I agree that the last Government was wishing to cut off Legal Aid, as it was an inconvenience to them delivering their slant or ideology. It was an anti democratic move and endangering both public and lawyers who's work could effectively dry up.

That's how 'Crowdjustice' was born, as an alternative way to establish a fairer crack of the whip and restore democratic balance. I used them on 2016 for an Environmental Juducial Review case.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Maybe S4ME should make a formal request to Dr Hemsley to share his protocols with the patient community. (If I asked I might be seen as in competition.)
Click to expand...
If it is a sensible protocol, that therefore has the possibility of saving lives, then it being restricted to one local hospital is obviously less than ideal. However, I would note that we aren't a a patient organisation as most people would recognise, so not sure why this Dr Hemsley would think it would be a good idea to give the details to us. Sounds more like a job for someone from AfME or the MEA - actually, thinking about it shouldn't David Strain be able to acquire it rather easily?
 
Andy said:
not sure why this Dr Hemsley would think it would be a good idea to give the details to us.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I have been having conversations with various people involved in charities and the patient community for nearly a year (including copying in David Strain) and so far have not had any inkling as to what the protocol might be. When I talked with Sonya I didn't;t get the impression she was likely to ask for it. Extended discussion with Charles has not led in that direction. It was suggested that I might be able to rustle up a protocol!

I think part of the problem is that there aren't really any active physicians in the charities. David Strain has been adviser to AfME but seems increasingly to be involved in other things. I assume he was involved in the Exeter developments but I have not been given any information.
 
Sasha said:
Is this an unsolvable problem, then?
Click to expand...

Maybe not necessarily? A physician who isn't an ME/CFS specialist but is genuinely interested in it could advance their learning a lot by linking up with a charity.

Whether anyone has the bandwidth to do something like that voluntarily, given the pressures many NHS doctors are under, is a different question of course.
 
"NHS to review ME services after death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill: Health minister and Nice commit to work to improve patient outcomes after landmark inquest" (The Times):
Responding to Archer this week Sir Stephen Powis, national medical director of NHS England, said that a “stocktake of existing CFS/ME services in England is being undertaken as an initial step”. He said a specific working group had also been set up to determine if extra support was required.
Click to expand...
Nice will also review the evidence on dietary management and strategies such as tube feeding for patients with severe ME, to examine whether its guidelines need amendments.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, medical schools are being encouraged to provide undergraduates with direct patient experience of ME, and an NHS e-learning package about the condition will be promoted to all of them.
Click to expand...
Link | 12ft
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom