Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 How times have changed eh? I have been living long enough to remember when doctors would do everything in their power to keep a terminally ill patient alive as long as they could, even though they knew that the patient was suffering and would die in the end no matter how much they tried to keep him/her alive. Despite pleas form patient and/or relative to cease trying and end the patient's suffering by allowing him/her to die, the hard headed doctors doggedly refused to stop trying to keep the patient alive, asserting that they could not play God, often quoting the Hypocritical Oath and insisting it was their duty to do everything to keep the patient alive. Today it has been revealed that 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year. The only thing is it isn't the patients or their relatives who are making the decisions, it's the same medical profession who in years gone by insisted they could not play God and asserted that it was their duty to keep the patient alive to the bitter end that is making the decisions and in fact neither patient or relatives are informed of the decision. Seem economics have taken over from the Hypocritical Oath - let them die then get rid of them and save the on expense of treating them to keep them alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Some people prefer to die in a dignified manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I think most people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 "Keep them alive" for what purpose or point? Fair enough if they were strutting around, but most arn't; and all you are doing is extending is the indignity of a drawn out death, with additional costs to the tax-payer. Ironic that those who tend to believe in an after-life are the most reluctant to leave this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Hum.... Where are you coming from with that osberver? Must admit you have me puzzled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Shouldn't it be a matter of personal/family choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Exactly Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I think most people do. Which is what the LCP was setup for. "This programme is recognised nationally and internationally as leading practice in care of the dying to enable patients to die a dignified death and provide support to their relatives / carers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 But there should be a choice by patient and/or relatives to be put on the program or not. No doubt the program is a good idea but the choice is not being afforded to patient/relatives. The doctors are making the decision without telling the patient/relatives. In other words they are playing God, which they had previously refused to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 But there should be a choice by patient and/or relatives to be put on the program or not.. There is a choice. " “The decision to begin the care pathway is made in partnership with the patient and their carers. “Such decisions would never be based on financial constraints, but always on recognition that a patient is dying and that further investigation and treatment would be futile, undignified and intrusive.” The care pathway can be discontinued at any time. However, like every system there are failings. Those failings should be investigated, but the programme itself is a model of best practice. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Life should be terminated for compassionate reasons not for financial reasons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Life should be terminated for compassionate reasons not for financial reasons. Correct, and that's why the pathway states quite clearly "decisions would never be based on financial constraints" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Life should be terminated for compassionate reasons not for financial reasons. I think it would read better if it said, "Life should be allowed to come to an end........ 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 There is a choice. " “The decision to begin the care pathway is made in partnership with the patient and their carers.“Such decisions would never be based on financial constraints, but always on recognition that a patient is dying and that further investigation and treatment would be futile, undignified and intrusive.” the care pathway can be discontinued at any time. However, like every system there are failings. Those failings should be investigated, but the programme itself is a model of best practice. Dear Wolfie, the decision to begin the care pathway is not being made in partnership with patient and carers according to a report published today. I will repeat. Doctors are making the decision to put patients on the program and patient/relatives are unaware that they have done so because there has been no discussion between doctor/patient/relatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Dear Wolfie, you are flogging a dead horse cos your foreign friend has a God given right to be right all the time. How do I know this? I read in in the Daily Mail. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Dear Cleo, perhaps you need to stop reading the Daily Mail. If the Liverpool Pathway was as bad as you make it out then I would suggest putting every scouser on it, but it isn't and I know because my own Mother is on it. At no time has my Mother's wishes been over-ruled by anyone. Even the report suggests that only 6% of cases caused concern. It is supported by the Marie Curie Cancer Care and it is they who have asked for an investigation as 6% is 6% too many. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 The report actually said that 60,000 people had been put on the Pathway without their own consent or knowledge. Many, if not most, patients who go on to the Pathway are too ill by that time to give any kind of informed consent - hence the emphasis on partnering with family members. So the 60,000 includes all of these. The report is quite vague on the actual numbers where no consent at all is sought, and obviously this is something to be investigated and avoided, but there are significant numbers of elderly patients who die in hospitals every year with no capacity to make their own decisions and no known family members. Should they be subjected to a long, drawn out death just because of this? It's perfectly possible that many of the numbers the report has identified as being placed on the Pathway without patient or family consent have no family at all, but have been supported and represented by friends, long term carers, care home staff etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) Dear Wolfie, you are flogging a dead horse cos your foreign friend has a God given right to be right all the time. How do I know this? I read in in the Daily Mail. <word removed> ! I'm not foreign. I'm as british as you are. Born and bred in Warrington <removed> ! Edited January 1, 2013 by Dizzy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 <word removed> ! I'm not foreign. I'm as british as you are. Born and bred in Warrington <removed> ! Brits abroad comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Brits abroad are only foreigners in the country they reside NOT foreigners to Britain. Sheesh! You lot would argue that the sky was green and not blue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Here endeth the season of peace and goodwill to all men! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I was thinking more of the TV programme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Here endeth the season of peace and goodwill to all men! Didn't realise it had started on here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Charles Futcher Jr said his parents, war veteran Charles Snr and Hilda, were put on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway without consent. The husband and wife died within ten days of each other at the same care home in Petersfield and their son said they were treated like 'animals' and doctors 'seemed to take it upon themselves to get rid of them'. Oh well the doctors do discuss it with patients/carers before putting patients on the pathway. But maybe the patients/carers were just not present at the time, eh? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Taking one example as standard practice gives an impression of a ferret up a rabbit hole. How long did this chap allow his parents to be treated like animals? And how many doctors seemed? 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.