No, well, it ain't necessarily so...
The Telegraph continues -
William had been admitted to the hospital on February 28, 2005 but by 9am the following day the decision made by the doctors to send him home.
Mrs Cressey told the hearing: "William's eyes were seriously protruding and he was having difficulty in closing his lids over his eyes.
"I told a nurse that his eyes were really causing him suffering and she went to senior male nurse, Christopher Kirby."
Mrs Cressey said the nurse explained the situation to Kirby.
"His reply was 'Well you know what to do about that don't you?', she replied 'no', and he said 'Just don't touch it', and then he walked away."
Breaking down in tears, she added: "William heard this and said: ''That was not very kind, was it mum?'
"Tears rolled down his face."That was not very kind, was it mum?
After being kept in overnight he was sent home on March 1 with Calpol and Ibuprofen, and a cardboard tray to be sick in.
He had seen five doctors in three days who were unable to diagnose and treat him.
William suffered a fatal fit and died later that day.
The nurse concerned appears to have behaved in a quite unacceptable and dismissive manner toward William and his mum.
Derek Zeitlin, for the NMC, told the panel that there was no suggestion that Kirby's actions had caused William's death.
It may well be the case that no action taken or not taken caused poor William's death; it is certainly the case, however, that no action taken or not taken prevented it.
Furthermore, it is certainly the case and a case in point that, if diagnosis is such an uncertain and precarious matter, a diagnosis of 'dying' must be as uncertain and precarious a matter to undertake. Yet, take it they do.
Take it they do!