You do realise the NHS makes choices like this on a daily basis even during normal times. How do you think organ donations etc. work? They’re given to the individuals who are likely to benefit the most.
Ambulance chasing is done in relation to cases of medical negligence causing injury/death rather than clinical decisions about how best to allocate treatment.
I would suggest that organ transplants are the decision of a group based on an assessed need and hence a list.
"Ambulance chasing" my sarcastic term has already been proven at the expense of many NHS trusts
However
Pope v NHS Commissioning Board (2015) may prove relevant from the swine flu era and the following is taken from an article in Hospital Times by
Lionel Stride, Barrister at Law for Temple Garden Chambers.
"Fortunately, although these are undoubtedly unique times, some guidance is provided by
Pope v NHS Commissioning Board (2015), which considered clinical negligence in the context of swine flu. The patient in this case fell unwell and believed that she had contracted swine flu. She attended a health centre where she was seen by an experienced nurse who examined her and advised her to return home and rest. Two days later the patient was admitted to A&E, where she suffered a cardiac arrest. She was resuscitated but had sustained brain damage which left her profoundly disabled. Investigations revealed that she had swine flu, which was complicated by pneumonia.
The patient subsequently pursued the NHS for medical negligence. At trial, the Court ruled that there had been a breach of duty and that this was causative of the claimant’s brain damage. Under national guidance, any flu-like illness was to be managed as swine flu. Had the nurse followed this guidance then she would have measured the patient’s blood saturation levels, found them to be low and would then have referred and admitted her to hospital. Had the patient been admitted, she would have been treated appropriately for swine flu and would have avoided the cardiac arrest.
While every case is factually specific, the principle of
Pope is that, even in times of an unprecedented health crisis, the courts approach the issue of clinical negligence as they always do; by examining the state of knowledge of the medical profession at the material time and asking whether a reasonable body of professionals would have acted in the same way. It must be remembered, however, that the extent of any strain on resources, and potentially the more limited ability to perform some types of emergency care, will undoubtedly impact on this analysis.
Ultimately, we can all appreciate the crucial role that medical professionals will play in managing the coronavirus pandemic. However,
Pope illustrates that, even in times of crisis, clinicians must always strive to follow the relevant guidance and that serious ramifications might occur when this is not the case. The wise choice is perhaps for NICE guidelines to be put up on hospital notice boards or, better still, emailed to all those concerned to remind clinicians under pressure of the correct approach to adopt when seeing vulnerable patients with or without the coronavirus."
