MRSA minefield

Published on Monday 19 May 2008 20:31

Lady Clark's judgment allowing Elizabeth Miller to sue the NHS in Scotland following her hospital-acquired MRSA infection (your report, 15 May) has far-reaching implications for healthcare workers and the population as a whole.

While the negligent spread of any contagious organism is a legitimate reason for redress, the vast majority of cases of MRSA occur for the same reasons that any infectious organism can spread. Bacterial, viral, fungal and other infections surround us perpetually. Community-acquired bacterial chest infections and their sequelae are common reasons for hospital admissions. MRSA is one variant of many species of Staphylococcus and people can often carry MRSA on their skin or in their nose with no problems.

For most people infected with MRSA appropriate antibiotic treatment and good care will cure the infection. In a few people with other severe illnesses infection with MRSA, as with any bacteria, can have severe consequences.

If patients are to be allowed to sue the NHS if they contract MRSA in a hospital, presumably they will be able to sue if they develop a streptococcal pneumonia, E coli urinary tract infection, staphylococcal wound infection, etc, in a hospital setting. Will they also be able to sue "the community" if they develop any of these infections out of hospital?

For Cameron Fyfe to suggest the NHS in Scotland needs the threat of litigation to "clean up the hospitals" is insulting to health service staff.

(DR) JAMES WALKER

Trinity Road

Edinburgh