Express 06/05/12

IS it really fair to have Mr Healy's tablets and medical condition pored over?

Mr Healy didn't ask to be brought into this situation.

ShabbyTiger wrote:IS it really fair to have Mr Healy's tablets and medical condition pored over?

Mr Healy didn't ask to be brought into this situation.

No, but he chose to have his meds on full display on a bedside table rather than in a cupboard or bag for meds.

AnnaEsse wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:IS it really fair to have Mr Healy's tablets and medical condition pored over?

Mr Healy didn't ask to be brought into this situation.

No, but he chose to have his meds on full display on a bedside table rather than in a cupboard or bag for meds.

Fair enough, but I don't really think it's fair for an elderly gentleman's meds and illness to be pored over on an internet forum. JMO.

Kate Mccann or gerry should have made sure that the meds were put away if they didn't want them in any pictures of the room. Apart from anything else they shouldn't have been left out where little fingers could get to them.

Keela wrote:Kate Mccann or gerry should have made sure that the meds were put away if they didn't want them in any pictures of the room. Apart from anything else they shouldn't have been left out where little fingers could get to them.

Quite right. But why should poor old Mr Healy have his meds and illness picked over on an internet forum? He didn't ask for any of this.

No he didn't ask for any off this but nor did Madeleine ....so who's fault is it that this being discussed?

kitti wrote:No he didn't ask for any off this but nor did Madeleine ....so who's fault is it that this being discussed?

Mr Healy is an elderly gentleman in his 60s who didn't ask for any this. What purpose is served by having details of his meds and illness pored over? Do any of us honestly believe that Kate and Gerry McCann used Mr Healy's meds to sedate the kids? This is getting as bit silly.

Not at all but children do swallow tablets and die because off this...we are not Insinuating that they gave them to her at all.

kitti wrote:Not at all but children do swallow tablets and die because off this...we are not Insinuating that they gave them to her at all.

At the end of the day, whatever the ins and outs of this case... to have the meds and illness of an elderly gentleman picked over on an internet forum is just not cricket. Not fair.

ShabbyTiger wrote:

kitti wrote:No he didn't ask for any off this but nor did Madeleine ....so who's fault is it that this being discussed?

Mr Healy is an elderly gentleman in his 60s who didn't ask for any this. What purpose is served by having details of his meds and illness pored over? Do any of us honestly believe that Kate and Gerry McCann used Mr Healy's meds to sedate the kids? This is getting as bit silly.

I think you're missing the point. The point is not whether the McCanns used Mr Healy's drugs to sedate their children, the point is the tablets were left lying around, where the McCanns children could have accessed them.

I'm almost 66yrs of age and while society may class me as being elderly, I don't class my self as elderly. I am still as sharp as a button and I am still of the same mind, that you do not leave tablets or any other object lying around, where there are young children. If Mr Healy didn't have to wit to put his tablets out of the reach of his grandchildren, his daughter and son-in-law should have done it for him.

As we know the McCanns also left tablets lying around in apartment 5a, where Madeleine could have accessed them, on the night she supposedly was taken. There are photographs of these tablets in the files and while someone has described them as Gerry's indigestion tablets, they are still tablets. If these tablets are anything like my indigestion tablets, they will be coloured and fruit flavoured and a child of Madeleine's age could think they were sweeties. Even if the tablets were not coloured and fruit flavoured, Madeleine could have still taken them and given them to her brother and sister.

Regarding this discussion being silly, there is nothing silly about people expressing their views, especially where this sad case is concerned. I'm not always good at expressing my feelings on here and on other forums and I would hate to think someone thought they were silly, because they didn't happen to agree with them.

I don't regard your views as silly I just don't understand why you are up in arms at posters who have quite rightly pointed out, that Mr Healy should not have left his tablets lying around, within reach of his toddler grandchildren.

kids have died from thinking tablets were lollies ( sweets)

Yes, kathybelle and Justice, you are both correct.

I believe that Gerry's antacid medicine was Losec (or something similar). I found the side effects mentioned on a Canadian website. Some of them would be bad enough in an adult. If a child inadvertently took the tablets, there could be nasty consequences.

http://chealth.canoe.ca/drug_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&brand_name_id=37&page_no=2

It seems there are several issues being discussed here:

1) Whether BH's tablets were used to sedate the children (despite them not being there before May 3rd)
2) Whether the McC's somehow got hold of BM's medication without his consent in order to sedate their children
3) Why Gerry was using banned anti-histamines
4) Whether Gerry's banned anti-histamines were used to sedate the child/ren
5) Whether there is a case for a negligence charge regarding not keeping medications well away from children
6) Whether KMcC's 'outrage' about the suspicion around her father's medication is being used to divert attention away from something else (i.e. GM's banned anti-histamines/indigestion tablets)

Personally, I'm not in agreement with 1, 2 or 5, nor interested in 3 but open to considering that 4 and 6 could be investigative opportunities.

Wintabells wrote:It seems there are several issues being discussed here:

1) Whether BH's tablets were used to sedate the children (despite them not being there before May 3rd)
2) Whether the McC's somehow got hold of BM's medication without his consent in order to sedate their children
3) Why Gerry was using banned anti-histamines
4) Whether Gerry's banned anti-histamines were used to sedate the child/ren
5) Whether there is a case for a negligence charge regarding not keeping medications well away from children
6) Whether KMcC's 'outrage' about the suspicion around her father's medication is being used to divert attention away from something else (i.e. GM's banned anti-histamines/indigestion tablets)

Personally, I'm not in agreement with 1, 2 or 5, nor interested in 3 but open to considering that 4 and 6 could be investigative opportunities.

I'm with you on 6 as far as using the 'outrage' to divert attention away from something is concerned.

Wintabells wrote:It seems there are several issues being discussed here:

1) Whether BH's tablets were used to sedate the children (despite them not being there before May 3rd)
2) Whether the McC's somehow got hold of BM's medication without his consent in order to sedate their children
3) Why Gerry was using banned anti-histamines
4) Whether Gerry's banned anti-histamines were used to sedate the child/ren
5) Whether there is a case for a negligence charge regarding not keeping medications well away from children
6) Whether KMcC's 'outrage' about the suspicion around her father's medication is being used to divert attention away from something else (i.e. GM's banned anti-histamines/indigestion tablets)

Personally, I'm not in agreement with 1, 2 or 5, nor interested in 3 but open to considering that 4 and 6 could be investigative opportunities.

Agree with you.