Totally with James on this. It’s very rare that the system accepts responsibility.
It is normal practice to administer respiratory suppressants in certain instances of respiratory distress, I’ve seen morphine help lots of patients who have had trouble breathing.
Lastly, from reading a few of this journalists articles it seems obvious she is nothing more than a trouble maker looking for glory. Her suggestion that the patient was given the wrong treatment because he was African is highly insulting to the doctors involved. These damaging accusations aren’t based on evidence but on an imagination fuelled by avaricious needs. With that in mind she should also be made accountable and sued.

@Steve

Assuming you’re male, which highly-evolved country are you from?

Most clinical mishaps/incidents/fatalities are not the result of a single human error. More often it’s a series of errors: one after the other, in a system with little overlap to minimise these unfortunate events-in other words system malfunction. I am afraid all too often a scape-goat is the most convenient solution. Enter the junior doctor. A scape-goat getting all the blame diverts attention from a closer look at the system. Factors such as nurse-to-patient ratios, overcrowding, doctor-to-patient ratios, no beds in monitored areas etc are not examined. Top management comes out clean; small guy takes a fall.

quote: “There are hardly any research papers in the literature on the use of benzodiazepine and asthma. I could only identify five or six and in none was diazepam shown to have any serious side effects when given in asthmatic patients”.

EXACTLY!

Sorry, Jason, to disagree with the Valium part. There are hardly any research papers in the literature on the use of benzodiazepine and asthma. I could only identify five or six and in none was diazepam shown to have any serious side effects when given in asthmatic patients.

In fact, the most recent one (2008) was a French study that found that almost 26% of asthmatics were also prescribed anxiolytics. The authors though showing concern, did not directly identifying any serious side effects. In another two studies concerning children, the use of anxiolytics during an attack was in fact found to be beneficial, as it reduced the anxiety (which can be made worse through the use of adrenergic stimulants that are common asthma treatment).

In addition, anxiolytics can be administered with caution during an asthma attack, and are only contra-indicated in a case of respiratory depression (at least in accordance with the recommendations of the British National Formulary – 2008).

I have a feeling that this might be another medical fallacy that has been perpetuated and almost turned into dogma. In my 25-year career as an MD, I have met a number of these that disappear once scientifically challenged.

Wrong… apart from the white coat bit. Well, it doesn’t even have to be white as long as it’s woollen and whoever it belongs to bleats and baas…. you know my surname and origins.

But seriously, I was referring to those people who refuse to be touched by doctors of the opposite sex even when the part of the body needed to be examined is not private. I can understand your issues with a male gynaecologist but I can’t imagine you feeling uncomfortable with a male dentist or optician.

My point is that the unfortunate man you refer to objected to having a female doctor not (to the best of my knowledge) to having a female doctor fiddle with his private parts.

[Daphne – This is exasperating. The cultural veto on doctors of the opposite sex is not because of a prejudice against women, but because of discomfort at being touched by unfamiliar members of the opposite sex, whether on one’s private parts or not. I brought up the example of private parts because in our society, that is what most people are uncomfortable with. We’re trained not to make a scene about it, but we still don’t like it.]

I can’t really agree with you there. Isn’t refusing to be seen by a doctor because of his (or her) sex on par with refusing to be seen by a doctor because he’s black (for instance)? Both views are discriminatory and cultural values or beliefs cannot be used to justify this.

[Daphne – Not at all. There are reasons why a man might not wish to be examined by a woman, nor a woman by a man, that have nothing to do with prejudice against the opposite gender. Women have to confront this issue on a very intimate level when deciding whether they would prefer to have a woman gynaecologist or a man. Discomfort at having your private parts examined by a man with whom you are not in a relationship (or woman, for that matter) is just the extreme end of the same argument: the discomfort some men from a more conservative culture might feel at having an unfamiliar woman touch other parts of their body in a non-sexual scenario. Let’s put it this way, if you have a problem with, say, erectile dysfunction or urination, or even just a strange mark on your genitals, would you be more comfortable talking to another man or are you one of those who would get some sort of thrill from having it prodded about and discussed by a woman in a white coat, as long as she’s attractive?]

One should not complicate matters unnecessarily, especially when one does not have tangible evidence.