-
Walker Miller27 May 2013 09:00I am sorry for your loss. However, even looking at the facts as you present them; the argument that May was killed by the NHS doesn't bare up to scrutiny. 1) You say she was a "frail and fragile lady". Frail and fragile people with pneumonia tend not to survive; 2)You said she stopped eating at home. Therefore, that's not the NHS starving her to death, that's herself starving her to death; 3) She refused the biopsy. This is her right, but if she won't let us find out what the matter is, we can't do anything to make it better; 4) She may have asked for a PEG, but this is a major operation. If she is frail and fragile, she is likely to die on the table. The doctors were right to refuse to do an operation that would kill her; 4) Nurses don't, as rule, put IV fluid along lines that have come out of the vein, they ask the doctors to put new lines in. If she had big blobs and oedema under the skin, it is most likely that she was having subcutaneous fluids which, as the name suggests, are meant to go under the skin. The fact that she got oedema is common side effect of subcutaneous fluids, which is why often don't use them. However, in May's case the hospital obviously tried to get fluids into her and save her life in the face of her refusing to drink; 5) If you have a frail and fragile person who is refusing to drink and potentially has cancer that they are refusing treatment for, and has a pneumonia; they are likely to die. I don't like it, you don't like it; but these patients tend to die. Is it not better that we are honest with ourselves and recognise that, rather than sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending it will all go away?
It is one month since May was taken on the LCP.
It is one month since the post was made upon which Walker Miller has chosen to leave a comment.
A subsequent post presenting further facts has since appeared.
I am responding to you courteously, Walker Miller. I find your response insensitive and ignorant. You haven't even taken the trouble to absorb what you have read. That is a matter of concern.
You have misrepresented facts as presented and made wrongful assumptions from your deductions.
Frankly, I find your fanatical adherence to a flawed protocol frightening.
The point is that May was an elderly lady frightened by her situation.
May needed time and reassurance. One daughter attempted to provide this.
The rest of the family forsook her.
The grooming process had already begun. The Macmillan team had done their work.
The point is that this lady may well have had a malignant cancer. She may not have. She may well have died from this cancer, but she did not die when she did from this cancer.
This lady had the presence of mind to decline the biopsy when she did.
This lady had the presence of mind to discuss her wishes with the one daughter who would listen.
This lady had the presence of mind to demand of the doctor who man-handled her and thumped her chest -
"What are you doing!"
The doctor did not respond but declared to the family she had pneumonia.
The doctor left and returned to say he had spoken to his LCP team and that May was dying. The family agreed she should go quietly on the LCP.
No-one asked May!
Even you will conceed that your protocol was broken by that single act, Walker Miller.
Flawed protocol?
Walker Miller, is your attention so deficit that you do not pay attention to 'Current Affairs', as the subject was called when I was at school and you were not even a twinkle in your mother's eye.
The current Review of the LCP is all about saving the reputation of the LCP.
The current Review of the LCP is all about rescuing the LCP from the catastrophic catalogue of errors perpetrated by your colleagues that caused its good name to be brought into disrepute.
The current Review of the LCP is proceeding because there is an acceptance and acknowledgement amongst government ministers and amongst your colleagues that monstrous wrongs have been perpetrated in the name of this protocol.
Flawed protocol?
Yes, flawed protocol.
Diagnosing dying has no scientific basis.
Yet, there are those among your colleagues, Walker Miler, on Facebook and on Twitter, who claim to 'know' when someone is dying.
The "three triggers", the "surprise question" - How scientific is that?
Yes, flawed protocol.
The doctor saw a change in her patient...
"There was a marked deterioration, she was dying. She was being unresponsive, she was not eating or drinking. She had a haunted, harrowed expression. She just wasn't just frail, she was dying."
The doctor appears to be applying both her experience and the protocols of the GSF Prognostic Indicator Guidance to determine a diagnosis of dying for her patient to good effect.
Who is this doctor...?
Who is her patient...?
The doctor's name is Dr. Jane Barton.
Her patient's name is Mrs. Gladys Richards.
Yes, flawed protocol.
May died when she did because of
- an initial failure to engage with her appropriately to provide a simple solution to provide her with the sustenance she required to survive.
- A subsequent and inappropriate determination that she was dying and the consequent decision to place her on the LCP which caused her death.
May was going to die, but she would not have died when she did. That is euthanasia. Euthanasia is unlawful in this land.
