There to care; not to kill: medical settings, statistics and wrongful convictions

TL;DR

This paper examines wrongful convictions of nurses in medical settings, highlighting the reliance on statistical correlations and circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof, and discusses the implications for justice.

Contribution

It critically analyzes the evidentiary standards and biases in wrongful nurse convictions, emphasizing the need for more robust proof beyond statistical associations.

Findings

Wrongful convictions often lack direct evidence like CCTV or DNA.

Statistical spikes in deaths are used as main evidence.

Private writings are misinterpreted as confessions.

Abstract

This paper discusses wrongful convictions in a medical setting, focusing on nurses. Common features are lack of strong direct evidence: the nurse was never seen doing anything wrong. There is no DNA evidence of tampering of apparatus or medications by the nurse. There is no CCTV footage showing suspicious actions. Analysis of medical records at the time led coroners to issue certificates of natural deaths, and most events were not, at the time, thought suspicious by hospital staff. There is no confession and the nurse consistently asserts they are completely innocent. There is no evidence of earlier psychopathic behaviour. Instead, private writings (e.g., in a diary) are interpreted by the prosecution as a confession; mundane behaviour is given a sinister interpretation. Motive remains speculation. The main evidence is statistical: a spike in deaths or collapses and a statistical association with a particular nurse. There is forensic evidence which suggests one or two patients might have been harmed by administration of medication much used in the hospital, and even legitimately used earlier in the care of the alleged victims. Police investigations are driven by the hospital consultants who were clinically responsible for the patients allegedly killed or harmed by the nurse.