The wife suing so is the husband. Andrew McGinley wanting to go on the late late, Deirdre McGinleys family writing in to block it. All extremely confusing. 3 little ones savaged to death.
I think there's a belief among many that psychology is an exact science, and so the HSE must be at fault. Perhaps is is on a macro level, but hardly 100% accurate on an individual level.
If an orthopedic surgeon puts a screw in the wrong place, against best practice, that's very easily measurable and can be objectively deemed correct or incorrect with no opinion.
Mental health is a much greater area than that to be fair, so a "misdiagnosis" is far less likely to equal "negligence"
I'm not sure we would be having this conversation if it was a man who had killed his kids but there you go.
Just seems strange the timeline of events from the horrific act to now. I really don't think there should be any payment involved if the HSE are found to be negligent. Certainly cover costs but in no way should Deirdre McGinley profit from her actions regardless of mental state.
I would imagine it is mainly psychologists/psychiatrists that would have that opinion. It is obviously one of the "subjective sciences". You might have heard the joke "if you put 2 psychiatrists in a room you can get 3 different opinions".
its like the law that way
you get the opinion you pay for
So in other words it's the private doctors opinions versus the HSE doctors.
It would take some planning alright. Not something done on a whim the way she did it
That solicitors firm specialises in family law, surprised to see them attached to this case.
This case really is another example of the zero personal responsibility in society these days- murder three kids- “ah that must be someone else fault” because they didn’t stop me. Spare me
This thread highlights clearly just how many people there are in the social media universe that have zero clue about a topic, yet express with absolute certainty an opinion about said topic. Where confidence trumps knowledge comes to mind.
If you don't understand psychosis, I don't think you're best placed to comment on the rights, wrongs or otherwise of the outcome of this dreadful case.
If a diagnosis of, or the severity of psychosis was missed by the psychiatrists/psychologists involved and she was left untreated (as seems to be the case given that the psychosis abated after a few days on antipsychotics), well then yes there could be some accountability on behalf of the mental health team.
I agree to a certain extent but is the answer just to sit back, not talk about it and pretend it never happened?
The timeline, the events since the horrific act and now this. it's all in the public sphere and people are questioning things. I'm not questioning the fact that she was mentally disturbed. I'm questioning the fact that she may now profit from kiling her children. Something has never added up about the whole thing.
According to the article linked above family members wanted her to seek help in the weeks before the incident but she didn’t. It also says she told no one about wanting to end her own and the children’s lives.
In the UK they conduct domestic homicide reviews. These look at the lead up to homicides carried out by someone related or a partner or ex partner of the victim and focus on reviewing what happened and what could have potentially made a difference.
We have been talking about this for a few years and I think it is agreed we will implement it . Not in place yet so in the absence of that this is the only way to highlight failings by state agencies.
Court case and gardai care about who do something , the coroner cares more about what happened. There is a huge gap in what could have prevented something happening and it should and hopefully will be implemented sooner than later
Have they found it makes a difference? Does it reduce the number of homicides?
I can't legislate for what confuses you, but I should have thought that the inference was clear this week.
Which tragedies are ripe for bandwagon frenzies (and from which angle) and which are hush-jobs is a very pertinent and current topic, and will continue to be so while we have (scan the thread) so many people who employ themselves as censors for what the proles may comment on.
I did a few psychiatric clinics when I was training. I know it's what the consultants are paid for, but it can be incredibly incredibly hard. I have a lot of sympathy for the people involved.
People sit in front of you and tell you one thing. If you over call it and medicate them they may not take it or you're accused of trying to do x y and z with medication. Detaining someone against their will is (rightly) a massive massive thing to do and incredibly difficult. Then you have people on the other side who have no intention of harming themselves or anyone else but say that they do to look for attention.
Now having delays for access to services for people that genuinely want it is one thing and is a sad reality of the service, but it is genuinely a very very difficult area and sometimes bad things happen. Hindsight is obviously 20:20 but I have unfortunately seen a case of a person who presented as a perfectly rational person, declined any further help or medication and then went and committed a terrible act a few days later. The people involved were deeply damaged and upset by it. Mental health is a very very challenging area and unfortunately can lead to the saddest and most devastating outcomes.
You're missing the point of the thread. No one is expressing any opinion about her condition or the outcome of the trial, it's the rights and wrongs of suing the HSE that is being discussed, when there are numerous other avenues that can be followed.
Even if it was just the husband suing, that might not be too bad but I personally object to my taxes rewarding this person for killing her children. I honestly don't think this should be entertained at all.
If it was a man, he would be in prison. What I don't like is the media and most people have washed her of any responsibility. I think the family wants to blame the health service because they probably (naturally) have elements of guilt that is better placed on the state. I wish Andrew McGinely well and hopefully some lessons can be learned here, but knowing some details on this case, I suspect they have a very minute chance. She should never be allowed out.
Can she see what's being written about her here or on similar websites?
Considering it's a hospital and not a prison she's in, she would have access to the internet.
For all we know, she may be reading this at home with a nice cup of coffee. Since she's a patient, not a prisoner, we aren't entitled to know anything about her treatment.
This is thread is to discuss the litigation against the HSE by the McGinleys. The title is clear enough to be fair.
Should she profit from her heinous actions?
?? I think you quoted the wrong post. I'm utterly disgusted by this legal action
Yeh I was referring to the patient info and treatment. You are correct, we are not entitled to know anything about that.
Surely this could lead to the floodgates being opened where anyone who believes they were wrongly diagnosed or a family member who may have committed suicide,
Which in turn could see leaving the hse or private sector for fears of being held accountable for a parent or patient going on to hurt themselves or others even though they appeared stable during an appointment
They are taking up separate cases. Andrews’s reasoning: ‘The legal action is a bid to highlight the need for improvements in Ireland’s mental healthcare system, the children’s father, Andrew McGinley said’ is honourable and praiseworthy.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40789803.html
I don't think it's praiseworthy or honourable. It can be highlighted without looking for a pay day.
You'd wonder how successful he would be without the wife taking a case too.
it is the place if we are paying for it
Or is the important word.
Part (iii) would appear to be the most pertinent here - as per the article you posted “I was thinking people would be sad, but it was definitive, this had to happen...I thought it was the right thing to do, the hard thing, but the right thing.”
So, the jury were obviously satisfied that she carried out the deed, but also that she was suffering from a mental disorder at the time, and that she was unable to refrain from committing the act. Hence their finding.
I presume there was expert opinion that told the jury what they should think regarding part (iii).
You would have to wonder though, with all the planning to ensure it was all over with before the husband came home, and the expression that the night before she felt relieved they refused to take the sedatives.
When I see these people telling the High Court they are not looking for a monetary settlement, then I'll entertain the idea that it's praiseworthy.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c4fa995385f3b1d974361fe25841d77e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/106011ca5625d81dfb148c9c1e2df535.svg)