What Do You Think..

[tommy.irene]

Mother who won £700,000 payout when NHS failed to detect spina bifida in her unborn baby faces having to sell home after being ordered to return half the money when he diedDeborah Mackay, 33, won landmark legal case for her son CalumMother used the cash to buy a house so he could be properly cared forBut Calum died suddenly and the NHS has requested £330,000 back .

Insulted: Deborah is upset because the £705,000 of interim payments were not ringfenced, so she could spend on what Calum needed

A mother who sued because doctors failed to spot her unborn son was disabled has to sell the home she bought to care for him in because the NHS wants almost half the cash back after he died suddenly.

Deborah Mackay, 33, took legal action against Bedford Hospital NHS Trust after scans failed to detect spina bifida in her unborn baby Calum, depriving her of the choice to terminate the pregnancy.

The Trust admitted negligence and agreed an out of court settlement beginning with £705,000 of interim payments with a final figure to be set when Calum reached 10.

Ms Mackay was free to spend most of the money on a specially-adapted home where Calum could be provided with full-time care.

Experts predicted a normal life expectancy for the youngster but he suddenly died from organ failure, aged just six, in November 2011.

Three months after his death she received a letter from Bedford Hospital demanding almost half their money back.

Health bosses said £330,000 of the original pay out was rightfully theirs because it was only intended to pay for Calum's care, which he no longer needs.

Deborah - who had been living in an unsuitable cramped bedsit before Calum's birth - had spent the rest of the money on looking after her son during his brief life.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324890/Mother-sued-doctors-failed-spot-son-disabled-sell-ho...

[Anonymous]

still they cause the mother grief. she sued for negligence full stop. the fact her child has since died is neither here or there.

[tommy.irene]

But they want the money back now the child is dead.

[flower-buds]

Experts predicted a normal life expectancy for the youngster but he suddenly died from organ failure, aged just six, in November 2011.

Made two mistakes it seems.

This is typical of overpaid idiots who don't care. care trust my........**

If its not bad and hard enough loosing a son without having your home took from you as well:-(

I hope she gets a lawyer who's evil and wont stand for this.

poor woman.

[bookhunter2007]

Tragic case, and it would be awful to be in the position of the mother, but I can see the NHS's position here.

Bearing in mind the DM's proneness to stretching the truth, if it is the case the money was solely intended for the child's care then I don't think it's unreasonable the money is no longer provided.

If the mother is suing on the basis the NHS were "depriving her of the choice to terminate the pregnancy" and ends up having a large two-story detached house to show for this, then I would find that a slightly unnerving legacy and memory of her son.

Despite admitting it, I don't think it's really clear cut here whether it classic "negligence" by the NHS or they simply failed to pick up something that can be very difficult to detect in the early months of pregnancy.

It's a tough one, but personally, i'd rather the money was spend on saving lives rather than pay for someone's large house -despite their difficult and tragic circumstances.

[flower-buds]

Its not a difficult task for the NHS to carry out the relevant tests.

It is standard during the first trimester of pregnancy to do the relevant blood tests and ultra sound scans.

It is a very important form of testing to be carried out to give the mother the choice she deserves on whether she wishes to continue with the pregnancy.

During the first stages of the pregnancy a various number of testing is carried out during the scan and the blood testing.

Normally you are given are high or low chance, these prove to be accurate.

The reason this lady wasn't told would probably be due to the fact that the consultant didn't carry out these tests thoroughly enough.

On the basis the nhs paid the sum of money to the mother (rightly so) out of court this admits fault on their part.

If the nhs had of done their job properly, they would not have to have paid out, the mother would of had a choice, and the mother wouldn't be in this horrendous position now, grieving over the death of her son. Especially when an expert advised her child would have a normal life expectancy.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Sounds harsh but if the settlement was paid in order to take care of Calum for the first ten years of his life but he lived only until he was 6 then it would appear reasonable that some of that money should be repaid.

This is the report from the Mail -

"A mother who sued because doctors failed to spot her unborn son was disabled has to sell the home she bought to care for him in because the NHS wants almost half the cash back after he died suddenly."

Compare to that in the Metro

"A spokesman for the NHS litigation authority said: ‘We have a responsibility to safeguard public funds.

‘There are no plans currently to force a sale of this property.’"

[bookhunter2007]

Its not a difficult task for the NHS to carry out the relevant tests.

It is standard during the first trimester of pregnancy to do the relevant blood tests and ultra sound scans.

It is a very important form of testing to be carried out to give the mother the choice she deserves on whether she wishes to continue with the pregnancy.

During the first stages of the pregnancy a various number of testing is carried out during the scan and the blood testing.

Normally you are given are high or low chance, these prove to be accurate.

The reason this lady wasn't told would probably be due to the fact that the consultant didn't carry out these tests thoroughly enough.

On the basis the nhs paid the sum of money to the mother (rightly so) out of court this admits fault on their part.

If the nhs had of done their job properly, they would not have to have paid out, the mother would of had a choice, and the mother wouldn't be in this horrendous position now, grieving over the death of her son. Especially when an expert advised her child would have a normal life expectancy.

Fair points, but in this case, i'm not sure it's fair to deem the NHS's "fault" that her son developed spina-bifida in the first instance. The medication she was taking clearly had an influence, so I think there's a case to be made for the drug manufacturer not making clear the risks, or conversely, individual irresponsibility for trying for a child whilst on medication which could prove to be harmful. The lifestyle of living in a "cramped bedsit" is hardly the ideal place to "plan" for a family either.

If I was a chain smoker, I think it would be a bit harsh on the NHS if I sued them for not detecting my Emphysema - even if it was negligence on their part.

[bankhaunter]

If I was a chain smoker, I think it would be a bit harsh on the NHS if I sued them for not detecting my Emphysema - even if it was negligence on their part.

You can hardly compare chain smoking to the necessary taking of medication because of an existing medical condition.

The health professionals should have taken extra care if the medication was likely to involve extra risk.

[bookhunter2007]

The health professionals should have taken extra care if the medication was likely to involve extra risk.

I quite agree. However, it appears the subsequent payout was on the basis it was to pay for the son's care. NHS funding and staffing is stretched as it is.  I don't think the situation is helped with excessive funds being spent on claims - particularly when lifestyle and individual risks may have been a factor. It's quite a potential vicious circle.

Another aspect of this does not add up. To go from a "cramped bedsit" pre-natal to a large two-storey house post-natal seems odd. If the son was confined to a wheelchair, I would have thought a bungalow would be more appropriate and suited for his needs. ?:|

[flower-buds]

Fair points, but in this case, i'm not sure it's fair to deem the NHS's "fault" that her son developed spina-bifida in the first instance. The medication she was taking clearly had an influence, so I think there's a case to be made for the drug manufacturer not making clear the risks, or conversely, individual irresponsibility for trying for a child whilst on medication which could prove to be harmful. The lifestyle of living in a "cramped bedsit" is hardly the ideal place to "plan" for a family either.

If I was a chain smoker, I think it would be a bit harsh on the NHS if I sued them for not detecting my Emphysema - even if it was negligence on their part.

Ok, so one cant help but wonder how the mother got her hands on the medication.

The GP I wonder? but why would he do that, extremely irresponsible on the gp's part.

Example...

When I was pregnant with my daughter (16 years ago now!) I developed thrombosis, excruciating pain and swelling in both lower legs and  I could barely walk. I would contact my gp daily asking very nicely for help (medication) and day after day his answer was a very firm NO.

You are right in saying the nhs may not to be at blame for the child having a serious medical condition but this is a condition that requires round the clock care and quite possibly heart wrenching emotional strain for the rest of the mothers/parents lives hence it is very important the relevant tests are carried out thoroughly with no mistakes taking place so the mother/parents can exercise their right to terminate the pregnancy on the basis they will be parents to an extremely sick child.

So if this mother was given medication whilst pregnant, then why didn't her gp who signed off the prescription check to make sure it was safe first.

If the mother took the medication without the gp's approval for whatever reason she still would deserve the right to know if harm has been inflicted on her unborn baby.

Anyway, as I have mentioned it is wrong that the nhs may force the mother to sell her home, the whole situation is down to the nhs being at fault in the very first place.

I could always sue the nhs for not detecting my broken leg and not detecting the breakage on the x-ray, well they did but it took them 6 weeks! but then hang on, it was my fault, I tripped:|

[unusualgiftsgalorestore]

Millions and I mean millions of mistakes and near misses happen in the nhs every day. Luckily for all of us only a few sue for damages. If we had a quality system of care, a council housing stock that met need and a well funded well run (by clinicians and not supermarket managers) nhs no one would have to sue for damages. Unfortunately, as we don't thanks to the selling off of housing stock and the refusal of governments to build new ones, as our community care teams are completely lacking and our nhs will fall apart this winter and if it does survive be non existent by the time this government is finished with it, this lady had no choice but to use the law. 

Some of the money should be returned in principle but this should be done sensitively and via the legal system with a negotiated outcome. This may not be possible as it could be argued that say a man takes out an insurance policy to provide for his wife on his death, he dies it  pays out one day and the benefactor (the wife) buys a house and dies the next would you expect those inheriting to give the money back to the insurance company? The nhs and the insurance company are both organisations after all so where is the difference? To me it is that the nhs is publically funded and as a mother myself it would give me comfort to know the money would help others, however, not one of us has walked in this ladies shoes, not one of us knows the truth as such we should all just be grateful that there but for the grace of God (or none God) go I. Remember we are receiving a newspapers political view in a time where being ill or disabled is being portrayed as being a scrounger and a money grabbing cheat, and the nhs as incompetent and therefore not worth keeping, so the slant of this story may be biased against this lady and the nhs, newspapers write their owners view of the world not the truth.