So it seems reasonable to me that she's just settled out of court for five million quid.
Now, I know that comments on a website are never truly representative of the population at large, but still, the comments on The Times report are interesting. Interestingly awful, that is. A disgusting glimpse into the minds of today's defenders of the NHS. That whole idealistic "best healthcare possible for all regardless of circumstances" thing has clearly gone way out of fashion, to be replaced with "take what you're given and don't you dare complain and what the hell's a rich person doing in our hospitals anyway?"
Most of the complaints are a nice study in vindictiveness and spite, but, for sheer small-minded idiocy, I especially like this one, from one Marie Oakes of Bolton:
her hospital admission was required due to the 'activities' of herself and her husband. These were in my opinion self inflicted, considering she states that she consented in these activities. Therefore she should actually be paying the NHS for her treatment instead of making yet another spectacle of herself.
I love the way "activities" is in quotes. 'Cause, you know, sex is dead naughty so can only be mentioned obliquely. And Oh! My! God! She consented! To sex! With her actual husband! Disgusting. And because she consented, she should have to pay the NHS for her treatment for injuries sustained as an indirect result. Just as the victims of car crashes shoud have to pay if they consented to travel by car.