McGinleys suing HSE

She repulses me. I don’t buy fully into the “mental health” thing here- to murder three kids would take some doing, especially physically with the two older boys. Some neck on her, from blocking the late late show interview to now suing the HSE..fir her killing her own kids. Pure evil

Spot on

Just to be clear about your last point, just in case any of the crazies who inhabit boards start saying the HSE was somehow negligent for not informing Mr McGinley of his wife’s medical condition, there are no degrees of confidentiality. Patients, particularly those with mental problems rely on the confidentiality of those medical professionals they discuss their problems with and would be less forthcoming and less likely to seek treatment if they thought their Doctor would be discussing it with others. So whatever blame may be attached to the HSE, not divulging confidential information is not one of them, and no Judge will attempt to breach the expectation of confidentiality relating to medical history.

Also, people should not speculate on whether the HSE were negligent until the facts are heard, we do not know what or how diagnosis was arrived at, whether she was medicated, whether she took medication or followed the advice given etc.

What has this got to do with lawyers standards? Everyone is entitled to seek legal advice and take a case if they feel wronged.

right, but some "victims" and solicitors think that adults should be supervised on swings and be given instructions on how to use it. The legal system rewards that type of behavior.

No wild speculation here, anything I've said is already in the public arena. Deirdre's actions, sure, but I believe that her culpability is diminished in light of the treatment she sought and didn't get. So does the court, hence the legal insanity verdict.

I agree with you that confidentiality should not be breached and that the treatment between patient and physician/ therapist. But the below, from the linked article, should be addressed in a review:

“Many people have written to me since I have talked about family inclusion, that they have managed to get their loved ones’ consent to include them in their treatment plans. And yet still they are not included.”

I appreciate that this will be difficult to manage since a patient could always retrospectively claim that they had not been of clear mind when they consented but you have got to start somewhere.

Btw: she had obviously never wanted to have her husband involved in her treatment since she actively hid her illness, so the above scenario cannot apply to her.

But it sounds like the case did open up discussions on areas within the HSE mental health services that need addressing.

Here's what confuses me.

This woman managed to keep the extent of her illness hidden from her husband that she saw all day every day, and did it so successfully that he he had no concerns about leaving his kids in her care.

But the doctors that saw her every now and again, among hundreds of others, they must have been negligent not to pick it up?

That doesn't make sense. These guys, both of them, just want it to be someone else's fault and now they want a big payday too. It reeks.

From citizens information, the criteria for "Not guilt by reasons of insanity":

A person will be considered legally insane if they were suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence and, as a result,

• Did not understand what he or she was doing or
• Did not know what he or she was doing was wrong or
• Was unable to not commit the crime

It is a pretty good explanation in layman’s terms though. Is this what you wanted?

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/11/section/5/enacted/en/html

What’s the issue when the patient agrees to have their treatment plan details shared with a trusted person? I personally wouldn’t go for it but I know people who feel they need additional support outside the therapy setting.