IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Corporate Responsibility, Tetraplegic man's life support 'turned off by mistake'
Iommi
post Oct 25 2010, 09:41 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



When are we going to see directors slung in gaol for this sort of thing? angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Oct 25 2010, 10:09 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I kind of agree. What I mean is, where the accident is the result of a systematic failure to put in place safe systems of work then absolutely, the buck stops with the directors and they should go down for corporate manslaughter - or better still, they should do their duty in the first place. But not every accident is the result of a systematic failure.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 25 2010, 11:04 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,934
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 25 2010, 11:09 PM) *
But not every accident is the result of a systematic failure.


In this case the guy had a camera installed to prove his care was inadequate - after his complaints were ignored. If this was't a systematic failure I'm not sure what would be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 26 2010, 08:11 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Yes, that is what I getting at. A director might not be able to be everywhere, but there are times when I see things in the news and I am staggered that people don't get gaol more often.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Oct 26 2010, 09:41 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 334
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 26 2010, 09:11 AM) *
Yes, that is what I getting at. A director might not be able to be everywhere, but there are times when I see things in the news and I am staggered that people don't get gaol more often.


In this case the hiring manager should of ensured the qualifications of the carer's were adequate to the care they should of been providing. The directors should be responsible for the processes that are used to hire workers. I wouldn't hold the directors responsible, I would hold the person who hired the individuals involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 26 2010, 09:42 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Oct 26 2010, 10:41 AM) *
In this case the hiring manager should of ensured the qualifications of the carer's were adequate to the care they should of been providing. The directors should be responsible for the processes that are used to hire workers. I wouldn't hold the directors responsible, I would hold the person who hired the individuals involved.

They could be the same person.

At the end of the day, someone is criminally negligent, but all we ever seem to see is: "we've put things in place so it wouldn't happen again." If people started going to gaol, perhaps they would have these systems in place sooner?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Oct 26 2010, 10:12 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 26 2010, 10:42 AM) *
They could be the same person.

At the end of the day, someone is criminally negligent, but all we ever seem to see is: "we've put things in place so it wouldn't happen again." If people started going to gaol, perhaps they would have these systems in place sooner?

I totally agree. It needs a strong and effective deterent to stop this kind of criminal negligence.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 26 2010, 10:53 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,934
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Oct 26 2010, 10:41 AM) *
In this case the hiring manager should of ensured the qualifications of the carer's were adequate to the care they should of been providing. The directors should be responsible for the processes that are used to hire workers. I wouldn't hold the directors responsible, I would hold the person who hired the individuals involved.

In law they are both responsible - the individual providing the care should be trained and competent, the person hiring her should have ensured this was so and the people running the company should ensure that everyone down the line is compentent. Ultimately the buck stops at the directors.

The local council / NHS trust who is employng the care company should also ensure that the care provided is adequate - it's their responsibility to provide the care, contracting it out does not absolve them of their duty of care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 26 2010, 11:44 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Dare I say that there could be more, not less of this, as costs are driven down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th December 2017 - 11:11 AM