Midwife is struck off over treatment of baby aborted at 16 weeks which was 'born alive

A midwife has been struck off after she failed to tell doctors that an aborted baby was alive and also told a concerned relative that he was moving all four limbs because of a 'reflex'.

The baby clung to life for 15 minutes before his heart stopped, with Bernadette Joanna Kelly wrapping him in an incontinence pad at the Medway Maritime hospital, in Gillingham, Kent. Details of the tragedy emerged at a tribunal of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which will remove Miss Kelly from the register next month. The hearing was told the baby had showed signs of life, with all four limbs moving, after it was terminated early because of severe genetic defects.

The baby was born at too early a stage to live but instead of informing senior staff, Miss Kelly wrapped the foetus in an incontinence pad and kept quiet for seven hours.

She admitted wrongdoing to the council but a panel said she did not act dishonestly, as she genuinely believed the baby was experiencing a reflex action when it was born.

However, they found that she should have immediately told other staff about the incident and documented what happened.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636991/Midwife-struck-treatment-baby-aborted-16-weeks-born-alive.html

What would anyone have done about it anyway? Bopped the baby on the head to kill it?

How utterly revolting abortions are.

Raggamuffin wrote:What would anyone have done about it anyway? Bopped the baby on the head to kill it?

How utterly revolting abortions are.

Is dishonesty right or wrong?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What would anyone have done about it anyway? Bopped the baby on the head to kill it?

How utterly revolting abortions are.

Is dishonesty right or wrong?

she wasn't dishonest

Raggamuffin wrote:What would anyone have done about it anyway? Bopped the baby on the head to kill it?

How utterly revolting abortions are.

agreed

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:

Is dishonesty right or wrong?

she wasn't dishonest

Well no matter if the panel found that she was not dishonest, to me holding such information is being dishonest

That is my opinion

You may find this interesting and also quite appalling Gelico

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-abortion-law-in-new-york-will-change-and-how-it-wont

Abortions aren’t wrong unless they performed by at least eight weeks.

8weeks?

OP, a very sad & distressing case. The parents did not complain about what happened. The midwife said she told the other staff what was happening but the staff denied this. I don't believe the staff, it's possible that they have scapegoated this poor midwife.

I have witnessed several enquiries like this and seen the way people carefully cover their own backs, whilst hanging others out to dry. No wonder the lady herself wanted to leave the profession.

Jules wrote:8weeks?

OP, a very sad & distressing case.     The parents did not complain about what happened. The midwife said she told the other staff what was happening but the staff denied this. I don't believe the staff, it's possible that they have scapegoated this poor midwife.

I have witnessed several enquiries like this and seen the way people carefully cover their own backs, whilst hanging others out to dry. No wonder the lady herself wanted to leave the profession.

Interesting Jules. Though why from a position of not knowing here, have you decided that she is telling the truth and all the others are lying?

Its quite possible they may hold grudge, but all of them? Seems far fetched to make such an assertion

It is a tragic situation, that we can all agree on. I dont deny she may have been used as a scapegoat, but she herself admitted to wrong doing.

Not only that she botched up another another incident. Which may have been caused by her emotions from the earlier incident, but this is the telling point to me.

A hearing heard she 'didn't care' what its outcome was, while Tim Mann, from the NMC, said she displayed 'no remorse' while spending 18 months suspended.

He said: 'The panel took into account that Ms Kelly's registration has already been subject to an 18 month period of suspension. Ms Kelly has not used that period of suspension to reflect or to remediate her practice.

'The panel therefore considered that it is unlikely that she would use a further suspension for these purposes.

'The panel therefore concluded that it was not in the public interest to impose a further period of suspension on a midwife who has totally disengaged from the regulatory process.