Comments on: Jumping to conclusions

By: 6000

6000 — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:26:31 +0000

Asking > I don’t know – simply because it doesn’t say.
If you are suggesting that the infection may have resulted from the insertion of lines (drips), then yes, this is always a possibility.
Prof Beale describes the situation as follows:

She rapidly became severely ill with a septicaemia. An organism had entered and spread in the blood, either from an invasive burn infection or gut related to her enteritis.

While it is perfectly possible for a line infection to cause septicaemia, it seems far more likely that it would come from her burns or her gut infection. Those (especially the former) are notoriously difficult to prevent infection in – remembering that the skin is the body’s major defence against infection and she would have had no skin on her hands/forearms.

As the complications set in as a result of septicaemia, it makes no difference where the lines were inserted – this would have had no bearing on which part of her body was affected as the infection was systemic and not localised.

By: Asking

Asking — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:25:31 +0000

One question: Were drips inserted into this child’s legs?

By: Champagne Heathen

Champagne Heathen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:25:45 +0000

I think Don even makes a good point in… the public actually would prefer just to know the facts. We can jump to our own conclusions from there. But these days so many journos want to be jumping to conclusions for us, to be the “intellectual” and not the “reporter”. I got so irritated with the bad reporting in SA that I was reading less & less, because of information gaps & sensational assumptions in reports. Here in Oz, the media I have come across is so much worse that it is actually laughable, and I heard the same about the UK. Reporters always blame the editors, but I am getting tired of that excuse. And enough with this excuse of “we have to SELL newspapers”. Uhhh… I have kinda run out of steam without some decent wrap up. But thank you to you for shedding light on this. AND yup, think how much unresearched incorrect info you read in newspapers because you aren’t an expert on that topic! Worrying!
.-= Champagne Heathen´s last blog ..Congress of The Unemployed =-.

By: 6000

6000 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:40:18 +0000

Don > I hope so.

By: donmulto

donmulto — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:02:31 +0000

Thanks for explaining. Makes total sense.

By: 6000

6000 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:28:33 +0000

RichSch > It’s like swimming against the tide, but at least I’m still kicking.

AdWiz > Ouch.

Stan > That’s horrendous. But there’ll be no inquiry. Nice to dream though, isn’t it?

Pamela > There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Don > According to the Professor (and I really have no reason to doubt him, because I’ve seen it in 100′s of patients before), Thembisa was admitted with extensive burns to her hands and additionally, a diarrhoeal illness. Bacteria, likely from one of these two routes, entered her bloodstream. This is a serious – life-threatening – condition: septicaemia.
Thembisa went into septic shock. This is the body’s reaction to septicaemia. One of the symptoms of this is the lack of blood flow to the extremities – the body prioritises blood supply to the vital organs. As a result of this, however, the oxygen supply (via the blood) to her feet was hugely reduced. This is where gangrene set in and this in itself would have spread and been fatal if drastic action hadn’t been taken.

Media reports failed to point out that the amputations were essential, unavoidable and life-saving for little Thembisa.
As doctors we can resuscitate but not resurrect, including the dead tissue of gangrenous, dead distal extremities.

All of this is explained in Professor Beale’s statement – admittedly, a lot of it in “doctor-speak” – but if 702 can’t get someone on who can translate it for the “man on the street”, then all they need to do is call me.

By: donmulto

donmulto — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:06:45 +0000

All i want to know is, why did the amputation take place? How did her legs get infected? As another 702 co-host usually says, you have got to look at the cause. Was it due to negligence of the hospital that the infection occurred or did she arrive with with infection in her legs and burnt hands?

By: Pamela

Pamela — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:27:14 +0000

Glad you cleared this up. The “reports” I read also said they amputated them off by mistake! No mention of infection or problems. It was basically said that she went in with a problem with her hands and came out without feet.

But then, why am I not surprised with all the other “factual” stories that have been printed lately.
.-= Pamela´s last blog ..Grounded! =-.

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:38:37 +0000

The Mirror headline for the story is “Doctors cut 2-year-old girl’s legs off after ‘mistake’ “, no mention of gangrene. Some other sites talk about unnecessary surgery, totally misleading. Totally irresponsible reporting, maybe the reporters should face an inquiry.

By: Ad Wizard

Ad Wizard — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:45:43 +0000

That’s what you call foot-loose journalism.