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

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

 

No, they don’t.

 

........new person in charge doesn’t like the direction, there’s a split/merger/new collaborative that changes everything?[/QUOTE]

 

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:

Here's a link to Reg 28/29. And the guidance on the publication of responses:

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)

 

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

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1843446277285241261

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1843446384902734204

 

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.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1843550312591990987

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1843564427146342758

 

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)

 

A new term for me.

 

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?

 

]

 

Richard Meddings track record.....

 

A very British term!