Meanderings of a Monkey Juggler

I just watched the fag end of the most poorly researched op-ed show the BBC has shown in recent months.  The programme was about one woman's quest to get to the bottom of her father's death in hospital. And more particularly to find out why the death certificae only stated "pneumonia" and didn't mention c.diff (a "superbug" her dad contracted whilst in hospital). He'd gone into hospital for a basic hip operation.  He was 87 and had other health problems too.  He came out dead.

So let's just start there for a mo.  He's 87 and has severe hip arthritis.  This is likely to lead to immobility and therefore lack of fitness.  One line from the presenter also suggested he was mentally incompetent.  Namely:


"If I knew that when you go into hospital you don't know what risk you take I'd never have let him go in."




So you'd let him suffer crippling pain and immobility instead would you?  If so then you're heartless as well as stupid.
A hip replacement op is NOT routine; it's major surgery with the patient being under a general anasthetic for up to 2 hours (sometimes longer).  People should get it into their heads that any surgery (and the side effects afterwards) is potentially lethal.  If you are unfit to start with then that risk is magnified.  Sometimes the risks are so bad that surgery is not contemplated because the risks outweigh the potential benefits.

Fairplay to the Dr who looked after her dad and who wrote the death certificate which stated "pneumonia".  He was interviewed (on a hidden camera) and said: "Things went wrong generally. He had heart failure, kidney failure, pneumonia, c.diff, MRSA and other problems.  I wrote pneumonia on the death certificate but this doesn't really describe what happened to him."  This was interpreted by the presenter to mean "It was c.diff but I wasn't going to put that."  It clearly didn't mean that but that was the meaning inferred.

Later on he got the chance to say what I initially thought he meant.  "The reason it doesn't say what happened is that what happened was very complicated and difficult to condense onto the form."  And fair play to him he continued; "I feel that I have written the death certificate properly and to the best of my ability and to re-write it based on a huge amount of outside pressure would not be appropriate."  Well done that man.  Kudos to him for sticking to his guns;  because he's right.  He showed the patient's notes file and it was huge.  How the hell can a simple death certificate show exactly what has happened when the road to the death was long and complex?  It can't.  And why is it in the slightest bit important? [edit: ahah! I know why it's important.  If it's a bug and a hospital acquired one at that the daughter could claim against the hospital and get some cash off 'em.] The stupid woman knows that the care episode was complex and her father was badly ill with a number of problems post-op.  Why is it important that an A5 sized piece of paper states what she feels it should when the doctors don't agree?  It's their job to write the certificates not hers.

They then played the heart strings ploy and went to visit the mother of a young disabled girl who'd died of "pneumonia" after being hospitalised.  She'd been reasonably fit considering but had clearly got ill enough to have gone into hospital.  She was disabled so not mobile.  Problem number one with this is pressure sores.  If you lie in one position for a long time the flesh between you and the bed dies and then you have an open wound.  A route for infection.  She got MRSA.  She died of pneumonia. MRSA may or may not have been a factor.  "BUT IT'S NOT ON THE DEATH CERTIFICATE!!" they cry.  Well no.  She probably died of pneumonia and whatever else she'd gone into hospital for.  I doubt the MRSA helped but a fit(ish) young person would not likely be killed by MRSA.

The presenter was extremely biased and clearly has no understanding of medical care.  It isn't a case of one thing goes wrong therefore someone dies (in the vast majority of cases).  Nor is it the case that if someone gets MRSA or c.diff then it's all because the hospital is dirty (this was the hidden agenda of the show).

At the end of the show the woman was wittering on about how her dad's death certificate was "wrong".  It wasn't.  It just didn't agree with her prejudices and belief that her dad was killed by a hospital acquired infection.  He may have been but to suggest that the doctors didn't write it because "they don't want to hurt the hospital's statistics" is just slander on them.

A disgraceful piece of programming.

Have fun.

And my troubles with my ISP continue.  I can't post anything to here from my home connection because as soon as I try the bloody connection decides that the blogspirit site is impossible to find!  I'm getting seriously pissed off with this.