The case of Martha Mills has become a symbol of medical accountability and systemic flaws in the UK’s healthcare system. Her tragic death in 2021 from sepsis, following a failure to escalate her care to an intensive unit, led to the creation of Martha’s Rule—a policy granting patients and families the right to seek a second medical opinion when they believe urgent care is not being properly administered.
Yet despite this significant reform, the disciplinary outcome for the consultant at the center of the case, Professor Richard Thompson, has sparked controversy. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ruled that although Thompson’s conduct constituted misconduct impairing his fitness to practise, he would face no formal sanction. This decision has raised complex ethical questions about responsibility, accountability, and justice in healthcare.
A Tragic Chain of Events
On 29 August 2021, 13-year-old Martha Mills was under the care of King’s College Hospital (KCH) in South London, recovering from an injury to her pancreas sustained during a family holiday in Wales. What initially appeared to be a recoverable condition soon deteriorated into a fatal bout of sepsis. Martha’s condition began to worsen rapidly, and her parents raised concerns repeatedly, asking for her to be moved to intensive care.
Despite their pleas and alarming symptoms—including the development of a rash—her condition was not escalated until it was too late. Prof Richard Thompson was the on-duty consultant responsible for her care that day.
The tribunal later found that Thompson had left the hospital at 3pm and failed to conduct a proper in-person review of Martha Mills’ worsening symptoms. Instead, he relied on phone updates, even after being alerted about the rash by the on-call registrar. His failure to escalate Martha’s treatment to an intensive care unit or assess her directly were critical lapses identified during the inquest and tribunal proceedings.
Read : Dentist Lucinda Collins Avoids Jail After Killing Cyclist While Distracted by News of Dying Father
In 2022, a coroner concluded that Martha’s death could have been prevented had medical staff recognized the signs of sepsis earlier and transferred her to intensive care when it was first requested. The coroner’s findings played a pivotal role in bringing attention to the systemic issues within the NHS regarding internal hierarchies and decision-making protocols.
The Tribunal’s Findings and the Controversial Decision
In June 2025, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ruled that Prof Thompson’s actions amounted to misconduct that impaired his ability to practise medicine. Yet, despite this severe finding, the tribunal took no further action against him. The decision was justified on the grounds that his actions constituted a “single lapse of judgment” within what was described as an “otherwise exemplary career.”
Read : Scary places on Earth that most people wouldn’t dare visit
Robin Ince, the chair of the tribunal, emphasized that the finding of misconduct and impairment in itself was a “significant stigma” that would tarnish Thompson’s reputation permanently. Ince added that Thompson’s mistake did not imply he caused or directly contributed to Martha Mills’ death. Furthermore, the tribunal found no evidence of an ongoing risk to patient safety and saw no benefit in removing Thompson from practice, especially given his reputed expertise in hepatology.
The General Medical Council (GMC), however, had recommended that Thompson be suspended for a suitable duration, arguing that taking no action would undermine public confidence in the profession. Christopher Rose, who represented the GMC, stated that accountability was essential for maintaining medical standards. He warned that a no-action ruling might send the wrong signal to both the public and the wider medical community.
Nevertheless, the tribunal rejected this view, concluding that suspension would not serve the public interest, particularly because of Thompson’s continued value to the medical field at a national and international level. They also underscored that his misconduct was unlikely to be repeated, making additional punitive measures unnecessary.
Impact of Martha’s Rule and Public Reaction
The creation of Martha Mills’ Rule in the aftermath of her death marked a turning point in UK hospital policy. Implemented in 2023, the rule empowers patients and their families to seek a second medical opinion when concerned about a patient’s condition not being adequately addressed. By March 2025, the policy had already been invoked over 2,000 times. More than 300 patients experienced improved care outcomes, and over 100 were transferred to intensive care or equivalent facilities following such requests. The rule has been hailed as a lifesaving measure and a tribute to Martha’s legacy.
Despite these advances, Martha’s parents, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, expressed their continued grief and frustration following the tribunal’s decision. Merope, a senior editor at The Guardian, and Paul, a writer, have been vocal advocates for medical accountability.
In a public statement, they pointed to the findings in KCH’s internal report that high-status consultants had a poor relationship with the pediatric intensive care unit—an institutional failing they believe played a significant role in Martha Mills’ death. They criticized the consultants for what they described as reckless disregard of parental concerns and basic clinical judgment.
Their sentiments reflect a broader public unease. While many understand the tribunal’s rationale, there remains a lingering discomfort about what justice looks like in cases of professional failure that lead to preventable deaths. Critics argue that the decision sets a troubling precedent where elite status in the medical profession might shield individuals from consequences that less established practitioners would face. It raises questions about how much weight is given to professional reputation compared to the gravity of a patient’s lost life.
Martha Mills’ story has also triggered conversations around hospital hierarchies and how seniority can sometimes stifle collaborative decision-making. Nurses and junior doctors often spot signs of deterioration first but may feel disempowered to override or challenge consultants. Martha’s Rule is seen as a counterbalance to these hierarchical barriers, giving families an additional route to voice their concerns effectively.
The medical community is now under increased scrutiny, not just to implement safety policies but also to reflect on how accountability is managed. While a single lapse in an otherwise stellar career should be viewed with some compassion, the balancing act between professional grace and public trust remains delicate.
The case also underscores the human cost of institutional failure. Martha Mills was a bright, joyful teenager with her whole life ahead of her. Her death, while not malicious or deliberate, was the result of systemic blind spots, overreliance on hierarchy, and poor interdepartmental relationships. Her parents have channeled their grief into activism, and their efforts have made a tangible difference in hospital care protocols across England.
The tribunal’s decision not to sanction Prof Thompson may be defensible from a procedural standpoint. Still, it leaves a moral and emotional void for those who believe that real accountability must involve more than professional embarrassment or reputational damage. Martha Mills’ Rule may prevent future tragedies, but the unanswered questions and unresolved grief surrounding her death will continue to challenge both the medical and legal systems in their pursuit of justice and reform.