Liverpool Care Pathway

[Reid Malenfant]

I have been watching this for a good while, looks like my first thoughts have been reciprocated :eek:

This is not about care for those that are near death, it's about killing people that happen to receive either government benefits or a pension which they are entitled to, while making excuses. I'd love to see how many rich people get bumped off ;)

While I'm sure I'd never be able to prove this, I'm sure that under the governments so called freedom of information act there must be some evidence out there.

Just to make things clear, my last parent (mother) died due to a massive blood clot spreading from her lungs.

I have no real interest in this, rather than the truth & it doesn't look promising :rolleyes:

You know I do not want to go into hospital :eek:

I guess I'll kill myself with alcohol before that could ever happen - thank f*ck :lol:


Honestly though, the LCP is a doctors excuse for euthanasia..

The state killing the patient :eek:


Frankly I don't give a monkeys if you agree with me or not! It won't affect my life a single jot ;)

[bobbasrah]

Is this a TV program Mark, presumably about a long-term and terminally ill care company/organisation judging by the soft and fluffy PR/PC title ?

[synsei]

I not going to look into this because if I ever find out they let my Mum die when they could have saved her, well heads will roll, literally...

[Reid Malenfant]

Sorry about this thread, I had really had a bit of a skinful :drunk: Instead of being up at 6:30, I didn't manage to see the light of day until 11:30AM :rolleyes:

What it is Bob is doctors deciding that a patient probably doesn't have long to live, or their life will be kind of difficult. They then institute the Liverpool Care Pathway.

What it is effectively is they give really heavy sedation & then withdraw tubes that supply food & liquids - killing them if you like :eek:

Apparently a hell of a lot of families haven't been informed by the doctors administering this that it is going ahead, they haven't agreed with it & often get no time to say goodbye on their own terms.

Some families have blocked doctors etc from getting to their relatives once they have discovered what is going on & the "do not resuscitate" note on their relatives medical notes. They have then administered fluids etc & at least one family had the relative survive for approximately a month after the doctors decided to effectively kill them.


Frankly I find it difficult to believe that what amounts to euthanasia is now being performed by doctors who took a hippocratic oath to preserve life :mental:

[synsei]

Okay, this has really hit home now: I was approached on two occasions by Mum's consultant who explained her condition to me and advised that it would not be in her interests to revive her should her heart stop. Mum was suffering from heart failure and this all sounded quite logical to me at the time, although I was finding it very upsetting. Basically the consultant was seeking my permission to let her die. He explained that reviving Mum from such an episode would cause her unnecessary suffering. I found this decision to be way too big for me alone, so I contacted the rest of the family to get their opinions. The consensus was to not revive her, therefore the following day I signed the document to that effect. I am now uncertain whether this was the right decision. I was not given a copy of the leaflet you allude to Mark and at no time was I made aware of the LCP...

[bobbasrah]

......Frankly I find it difficult to believe that what amounts to euthanasia is now being performed by doctors who took a hippocratic oath to preserve life :mental:

Wow, a highly emotive and controversial subject, but your observation implies a policy applied without engagement of patient or family which is extraordinary indeed.

No decision to allow a family member is ever going to be easy, as you must apply logic and reasoning in a moral and emotional minefield. The issues must be dispassionately examined in terms of the quality of life of the subject, ideally with agreement of the patient, the medical staff and the family members. It is never easy to achieve concensus in such circumstance, and the medical case for non-revival would have to be utterly compelling and peer reviewed.

I see a massive distinction however between euthenasia and non-revival, irrespective of the hippocratic principles. The Tony Nicklinson case was a particularly distressing example of euthenasia being sought, frustrated by legal argument and imposed moralisation from the Pro-Life lobby.
A decent human being would put a horse out of it's misery in such a situation, but a human may not be so treated by fellow human as this is defined as murder.

That the current legal/hypocratic/moral argument over the right to die due to extraordinary circumstances remains a continuing argument between lawyers in this modern age, is frankly a disgrace.