Saturday, March 24, 2007

Dirty NHS hospital kills patient

And a coverup fails. How many more deaths from negligence is this hospital concealing?

A father of three died after he contracted an infection from a hospital shower on the day that he was due to be discharged after successful treatment for leukaemia. The hospital had failed for many years to act on guidance about the safety of its ageing hot water system, a court was told. The failure led to Daryl Eyles, 37, contracting legionnaires’ disease from a dirty shower head. He had just been told that he was in complete remission after enduring months of chemotherapy. At Bath Magistrates’ Court, the Royal United Hospital (RUH) in Bath admitted two charges of failing to act on safety warnings.

Jennifer Gunning, chairwoman of the bench, said: “Guidance was available for more than ten years, but this was blatantly not followed. The RUH management was inadequate. Mr Eyles died as a result of those failings and many other vulnerable patients were put at risk.” Referring the case to Bristol Crown Court for sentencing, she said: “We believe this to be so serious that our sentencing powers are not sufficient.”

Mr Eyles, a security guard at Bath University, had leukaemia diagnosed in August 2003 after developing a painful abscess while on holiday in Cyprus. The cancer went into remission after his first course of chemotherapy, but he was told that he needed two more sessions to make sure that it did not come back. He spent Christmas at home with his family before returning to the hospital for his final session in January 2004.

His wife, Andrea, 31, had previously told how her husband was desparate to get home and had tried to discharge himself early but was advised to wait a few days. She said: “I saw him after he finished his chemotherapy and he just wanted to come home. He felt fine and was looking forward to getting back to work. “He said he had more chance of catching something in hospital than he did at home, but the doctors advised him to stay in hospital.”

On February 7 Mr Eyles took a shower at the William Budd Oncology Unit, where he was being treated. He became ill and was prescribed antibiotics, but they failed to prevent his death a week later. Doctors initially told Mrs Eyles that her husband had died of pneumonia and septicaemia. She discovered the true cause only after taking legal action. An investigation found that the shower head was contaminated with Legionella bacteria. She said: “I just wanted to know the truth about what happened and I’m furious that it took legal action to get it.” The couple, from Bath, had two children: Georgina, 10, and Mitchell, 8. Daryl also had a son, Christopher, 14, from a previous relationship.

After the hearing Mark Davies, the chief executive of the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust, said: “The RUH took this incident extremely seriously and we have learnt from this very sad case. “We were all shocked by the sudden death of Daryl Eyles in February 2004. The trust accepted liability in October 2004 and has since reached a settlement in response to the family’s claim. At the time the trust fully cooperated with the Health and Safety Executive and has complied with all its recommendations to minimise further risk of Legionella.” The hospital trust will be sentenced on March 29.



Below is their excuse for banning the talk on Islam by Dr Kuenzel. Immediately below that is a response exposing the lies in the "explanation"

As the responsible officer, I write in response to your message to the Vice-Chancellor.

Dr Kuentzel's proposed public lecture last Wednesday evening was cancelled neither for any reason of censorship nor because of pressure from any interest group. It was cancelled because the organisers did not give us enough notice to provide the normal level of portering, stewarding and security (around twenty people in total) for such an event.

It is simply not true that we somehow capitulated to threats or complaints. As a matter of fact, we received no threats, and only a handful of complaints - fewer indeed than for a talk delivered on our campus the previous evening by an Israeli diplomat. The talk by the Israeli diplomat went ahead; the difference was that the organisers (the University's Jewish Society) told us about that talk the week before and worked with us to make the necessary arrangements.

Assuming that we are given enough notice, and appropriate logistical information, I know of no reason why Dr Kuentzel should not deliver his lecture in Leeds at a future date.

For the record, and despite press reports to the contrary, the University did not in any way seek to prevent two other talks by Dr Kuentzel on (I believe) the same theme: as internal academic seminars, they did not require the same level of support as a large public meeting.

I would refer you to a statement on the University's website ( ).

Yours sincerely

Roger Gair

Comment by Dr. Matthias Kuentzel on the above:

First of all I have to emphasize that I never got a written or even verbal explanation by Mr. Gair or by the office of the University's vice-Chancellor as to why my talk on Islamic antisemitism had been canceled on the very day I arrived in Leeds. No one responsible for the cancellation ever apologized. The University of Leeds did not and does not treat me like an invited guest speaker, but like someone unwelcome who just makes mischief - quite an unpleasant experience.

Against this background, I was confronted with conflicting information with respect to the two seminars scheduled as follow-up events to my public talk. A press officer told me that only my public talk was cancelled. Faculty members of the German department told me that these seminars were cancelled as well. I finally gave these seminars at a location off the University grounds. Many faculty members and students of the University nevertheless participated. The statement by Roger Gair "The other two events [the seminars] are going ahead as planned" (see Times, March 16) was simply not true.

Roger Gair's statement of March 19 is as inconsistent as his press release of March 15.

1. His comparison of my talk with the talk of an Israeli diplomat is completedly misleading, since I am not a diplomat (with all the security requirements that such a status implies) but an academic.

2. He admits that the University in my case "received no threats, and only a handful of complaints". Why then has my "lecture been cancelled on safety grounds . to protect the safety of participants in the event" as his press release says? Why then did Mr. Gair demand that "around twenty people in total" or - in his press release four days earlier - "around 30 people in all" had to be in place just for security reasons?

3. His assertion that the organisers of my talk "did not give us enough notice" to provide for this amount of security staff is misleading, since my talk in Leeds had been scheduled four month earlier and the publicity for it had been out of weeks.

4. It was not my lecture which came to the University's "attention less then 36 hours before it was due to take place" - as his press release asserts - but rather some E-mails by Muslim students who asked the University only on March 13 to "provide a solution . by cancelling the lecture all together" and to "apologize to the Muslim Community as a whole, for suggesting such a topic."

That is why I cannot find the Secretary's claim that my public lecture "was cancelled neither for any reason of censorship nor because of pressure from any interest group" convincing. Instead, there are many indications that the University anticipated potential protests before they ever happened and thus practiced self-censorship.

More here

Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming

Gore won't accept. Monckton really knows science and Gore knows that Monckton would make mincemeat out of him

In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous." See here.

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide." Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head to head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in the usually-decorous pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November.

Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."

The arena of the glittering "Second Great Debate" will be the elegant, Victorian-Gothic Library of the Oxford Museum of Natural History, which was the setting for the "Great Debate" between the natural scientist T. H. Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce on the theory of evolution, following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Lord Monckton says he chose this historic venue "not only because the magnificent, Gothic architecture will be a visually-stunning setting for the debate but also because I hope that in this lofty atmosphere the caution and scepticism of true science will once again prevail, this time over the shibboleths and nostrums of the false, new religion of climate alarmism."

Lord Monckton's resounding challenge to Al Gore reads as follows -- "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice- President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question, 'That our effect on climate is not dangerous,' to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President's choosing. "Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President's prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save the Queen!"



UK's climate change agenda 'is a turn-off' Britain's mainstream political agenda on climate change risks intruding into people's lives, threatens individual freedom and could turn voters off the fight against global warming, [the European Commission President] Mr Barroso warns.

As the architect of EU proposals on fighting climate change and measures to set tough binding limits and reductions for CO2 emissions, the Commission President's intervention is a particular setback for ideas given high-profile personal backing by the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, and the Conservative leader, David Cameron.

Mr Barroso hails cheap air travel as "a great thing for our civilisation" and expresses grave concerns over fashionable plans, floated by Mr Miliband, for personal carbon rationing. He suspects that the proposals to restrict CO2 emissions from an individual's activities will lead to intrusive surveillance into private lives. "I do not see any need to establish these intrusive approaches that may reduce the freedom of our societies," he says. "We have to find the right balance and I believe the right balance is not found if we start giving these kind of personal good or bad behaviour certificates to people."

Mr Barroso's views on tackling global warming also clash with Mr Cameron's plans to introduce green taxes and individual allowances on air travel should the Tories win the next election. "Cheap air travel is great for our civilisation. When we think now that people have the freedom to circulate instead of being confined to a small territory, it is great progress," he says.

He is convinced that targeting individuals with such measures will fracture the current popular consensus on climate change. "We should set binding standards and targets by law but to come to specific individual targets is counter-productive. It can turn people against the cause. Let's do it, collectively with a good spirit but without being intrusive in people's lives."

Recent polls have found that two thirds of Britons fear politicians will use climate change as the excuse to raise taxes and 60 per cent oppose higher levies on cheap flights.

Source. For the Telegraph's Barroso interview, see here

1 comment:

Mari Carmen said...

Hello!! Greetings from Madrid, Spain. I have found your blog by chance and I like it. I am ready to read you and learn a lot of things thanks to your words.

Bye :)