Show Notes
Michael and Peter discuss RCPCH review findings that not only was there insufficient senior medical cover at The Countess but there was also reluctance to seek advice, whether among junior doctors or consultants. Was this because proceedures were weak or they weren't being followed? Michael cites an example from his own experience.
More from We Need To Talk About Lucy Letby
Hospital management finally learns of the extent of the increased mortality over the previous year or so, thouigh why they did not know earlier is a mystery. Immediately they decide to no longer admit babies below 32 weeks gestation and to invite the RCPCH to conduct a service review. The consultants also demand that Lucy is taken off the ward on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
June 2016 proves to be a particularly frenetic month at The Circus of Chester. There is no essential medicine for a baby with haemophilia. 33 week triplets are admitted but do not receive the care promised the mother. Two of them die and the third is transferred to Liverpool Women's Hospital. The mother later says the two hospitals were "as different as night and day".
Michael and Peter continue to discuss Rachel Aviv's article in The New Yorker. They note how time and time again Countess consultants dismissed obvious explanations for deaths and honed in on Lucy. But, docs, if you thought Lucy had killed babies as you say you did from the getgo, why didn’t you order forensic autopsies? Were you worried they might find you culpable rather than a nurse?
Babies A, C and D die in June 2015 and hospital consultants immediately identify an association with Lucy Letby. They did not associate the deaths with the acute pneumonia, phospholipid syndrome, emergency caesarian, low birthweights, lack of antibiotics, lack of fluids, delay in transfer to neonatal unit, crossed pulmonary arteries, multiple birth issues, effect of anaesthetic, high blood pressure, problems with two long lines, dangerous placenta condition, and sepsis. The pathologist did. Why didn't you, docs?
The New Yorker publishes a 13 thousand word article about the holes in the Lucy Letby case. In episode 15, Michael and Peter discuss various aspects of the article, such as it having been 'geoblocked' in the UK, and whether the UK's contempt laws in relation to reporting restrictions that are designed to prevent upcoming trials being prejudiced are fit for purpose. Aviv's article touches on the infamous roster data table shown to jurors, which your co-hosts discuss in detail.