Wednesday, 2 January 2013

Liverpool Care Pathway – A Certain Uncertainty

This comment left on the LCP Facebook pages:
"The CMF stance on the LCP has never satisfied me. They are in favour of the LCP if "used properly" and when death is "imminent" - I still ask if anyone can ever be 100% sure that a person is going to die within ? hours/days ... and what right anyone has to make this assertion in the first place!"

MONDAY, 31 DECEMBER 2012

Liverpool Care Pathway – nine points for the government to consider in its review

To iron out the abuses that have been reported, several key measures need to be implemented: 

1.It should be made absolutely clear that no one who is not imminently dying within hours, or at most two or three days, should be placed on the LCP and anyone placed on it who shows improvement should be taken off it. These assessments should be made by senior clinicians.

2.No one should be placed on the LCP without it being discussed with the relative or carer (although the latter do not need to give consent).

3.Every patient placed on the LCP must be regularly monitored and reassessed by a multidisciplinary team.

4.The present documentation is far too complex and needs to be simplified and standardised so that those implementing it can easily follow the guidelines and supervisors can easily tell what is going on with each patient.

5.Training and supervision of those using the pathway needs to be standardised and improved and formal training should be required before any healthcare professional is able to use it.

6.An annual audit needs to be carried out and all suboptimal use identified promptly acted upon.

7.Non-clinical priorities in the use of the pathway, especially financial priorities, must be eradicated and every patient treated solely according to their need. In this connection it would be far better to link CQUIN payments to staff training in the use of the pathway rather than numbers of patients placed on the pathway.

8.Communication to relatives both by health professionals and organisations involved in LCP implementation needs to be substantially improved.

9.Those misusing the LCP should be quickly identified and in the case of abuse reported to the appropriate authorities (General Medical Council, Nurses and Midwifery Council or Health and Care Professions Council). 


Writing in a recent review for CMF’s journal Triple Helix, Dr Jeff Stephenson, a Devon-based consultant in palliative care has said: 

‘The LCP represents a pragmatic and effective response to some of the suffering experienced by many in the last days of life. It remains, however, a tool and it is only as good as those who use it. There is always potential for misuse and abuse and there are undoubtedly instances where this occurs. Where these arise by intention then those involved should be held to account, but more often they occur through poor understanding and inadequate training. We owe it to patients to not only furnish the means to better care, but also to equip adequately those who provide it.’


Stephenson’s whole article is well worthy of study.


This is Mail Online -


Christian doctors call for ban on NHS 'bribing' hospitals to put more patients on controversial death pathway
  • Christian Medical Fellowship said financial incentives should be 'eradicated'
  • Urged ministers to tighten controls on Liverpool Care Pathway system
  • Cash should be reinvested in better training for staff


An influential group of Christian doctors yesterday called for an end to financial ‘bribes’ that encourage hospitals to place dying patients on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway.

The Christian Medical Fellowship said judgments about whether to withdraw treatment from terminally-ill patients should be made solely on clinical grounds.

The CMF, which represents more than 4,000 doctors, said financial incentives for hospitals to use the system – thought to run at more than £10million a year in total – should be ‘eradicated’ immediately.

It also urged ministers to tighten controls to end the ‘undoubted abuses’ of a system designed to ensure patients die with dignity.

Dr Jeff Stephenson, a Devon-based consultant in palliative care, said the care pathway could help ease suffering if used properly. 

But he added: ‘It remains a tool, and it is only as good as those who use it. There is always potential for misuse and abuse and there are undoubtedly instances where this occurs.

‘Where these arise by intention then those involved should be held to account, but more often they occur through poor understanding and inadequate training.

‘We owe it to patients to not only furnish the means to better care, but also to equip adequately those who provide it.’

A dangerous vehicle is still as dangerous in the hands of a trained driver.

The determination that someone is going to die is a diagnosis of the futility of their condition and that it will result in death.

If that person is already weak and frail, the rigours of the LCP protocols are going to make that outcome more likely.

The advocates of the LCP make assurances that should the person improve they may be removed from the protocol. To make such assurances is to admit that wrong diagnoses do occur. It is not so certain, then, to determine with certainty that a person should be placed on the LCP...

Footnotes:

The report highlights a myriad of challenges of mainstreaming palliative care: the fact that most common chronic diseases (unlike cancer) have uncertain prognoses, which makes assessment of the need for palliative care difficult...
"The Solid Facts: Palliative Care" edited by Elizabeth Davies and Irene J. Higginson - Ethos Perspectives — May 2007 Soh Tze Min and Sheila Ng


Placing a patient on the Pathway "is a decision with an end in view. The patient is dying. Why? Because we say they are dying. Why? Because we have decided.” 
- Dr Philip Howard


Without a doubt, end-of-life care is fraught with complexity and controversy. For example, there is continuing debate whether it devalues life by abandoning curative efforts too early, or is more respectful of life as it seeks to give the dying greater dignity and quality of life. While most respect individual choice and one's right to die with dignity, interpretations—whether individual, societal, cultural, religious or clinical—of what constitutes "quality of life" in one's dying years vary greatly. There is also a lingering perception that palliative care can result in substandard medical treatment, or is a way to end the burden of caregivers.
Ethos Perspectives — May 2007 (Soh Tze Min and Sheila Ng - Social Policy)


‘The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.
‘Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.
‘Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.
‘Predicting death in a time frame of three to four days, or even at any other specific time, is not possible scientifically.
This determination in the LCP leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The personal views of the physician or other medical team members of perceived quality of life or low likelihood of a good outcome are probably central in putting a patient on the LCP.’
‘If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths.’
- Professor Patrick Pullicino

Liverpool Care Pathway - In Whose "Best Interests"?

The Mail Online reports:
"David James, 68, walked into his local hospital last May with suspected constipation but never left after developing hospital acquired pneumonia and blood poisoning."
This unnamed hospital, which cannot be named for "legal reasons" needs to be named and shamed.

This unnamed hospital must not be permitted to hide the truth, nor hide from the truth.

This unnamed hospital insists that Mr.James was not put on the LCP. This unnamed hospital still has much to answer for.

Mr. James walked into hospital seven months ago with a stomach complaint, but later that month became critically ill after contracting hospital acquired pneumonia that led to multiple organ failure.
"This is one of the terrible things. Aside from the pneumonia, we’ve never really had a diagnosis. All we know is that from the moment he went into hospital, he went catastrophically downhill." (May James)
This unnamed hospital must bear some responsibility for this outcome, then. Has the unnamed hospital no apologies, no explanation ready for this family?
“And what gets me is that with this court case, all that’s been discussed, nothing has ever been brought up about why he ended up in that situation. And what led to his deterioration. That’s been pushed under the carpet. 
“We’ve still got questions that need answers and we’re not going to stop.”(Paul James)
Is there more that this unnamed hospital is not telling this brave family? Why was there such a determination to withhold treatment that they went to the court to enable them to do so?

When is enough enough? The decision not to use 'invasive' treatments has to lie with the patient. Or the patient's family. This patient, this family, clearly, had not given up on his life as easily as did his doctors.


The Mental Capacity Act (2005) says that when a patient lacks the capacity to consent to, or refuse, medical treatment, the doctor concerned will have to decide what is in the patient’s best interests. In doing so, the focus should be on what the patient would consider his/her best interests, not what the doctor would consider his/her best interests if he were in the same position.

There should be consultation with relevant others (ie, you must take into account the views of the adult’s nearest relative and primary carer, and of any other person with powers to intervene in the adult’s affairs or personal welfare, or with an interest in the adult, so far as it is reasonable and practicable to do so)


Did the court, did the doctors concerned, take account of what Mr. James considered his 'best interests'?

Did the court, did the doctors concerned, take account of what Mr. James' nearest relative considered his 'best interests'?

How can this be?

This is the Mail Online reporting -


'He was sentenced to death': Grandfather who lost 'right to life' court case dies in the early hours of New Year's Eve

  • David James, 69, died after his 'heart stopped beating', says son
  • He contracted pneumonia in hospital and had been bedridden since
  • Wife May and daughter Julie lost landmark High Court battle last month
  • Local hospital had been allowed to put the retired musician on the Liverpool Care Pathway if his health deteriorated



A grandfather has died just ten days after his family lost a legal battle that allowed his hospital to withhold treatment if his condition deteriorated.

David James, 68, walked into his local hospital last May with suspected constipation but never left after developing hospital acquired pneumonia and blood poisoning.

Within weeks he was in intensive care and was left unable to speak or breathe unaided.

Last summer the hospital trust - which cannot be named for legal reasons - launched a rare legal action seeking permission to withdraw potentially life-saving treatment from Mr James.
His appalled family insisted Mr James, a professional musician, still enjoyed life and was not ready to die leading to a judge rejected the hospital trust's application.

But the trust won an appeal against the decision days before Christmas meaning treatment could be withheld from Mr James if his condition deteriorated.

His daughter Julie, 48, described the ruling as 'legalised murder'.

Little more than a week later Mr James' condition deteriorated and he died in the early hours of New Year's Eve with his family saying they begged staff to do more to help.

Julie said: 'When the nurse told us he was going I just got hold of him and held him tight. I told him we would keep on fighting for him.

'We are all in total shock. It's very hard to take in and my mum is distraught.

'Dad has bounced back so many times that it's hard to accept that it's not going to happen now.

'Even now I feel I should be getting ready to go to hospital to see him. It is hard to believe that this happened to a man who came into hospital for constipation a few months ago.' 

Mr James's condition deteriorated over the weekend and by Sunday his blood pressure was very low and his kidneys had started to fail.

He was given medicine to tackle the low blood pressure but Julie says their calls for him to be given kidney dialysis were rejected.

Julie says the hospital told her dialysis would be 'futile' and would have subjected her father to 'unnecessary distress'.

Family fight: David's wife May with daughter Julie James say they will not give up hope and will keep fighting for their husband and father not to be put on the care pathway
Family fight: David's wife May with daughter Julie James refused to give up hope and 
fought for their husband and father not to be put on the care pathway

Before visiting hospital: David James pictured at home in Easter this year before he contracted pneumonia in hospital
Before visiting hospital: David James pictured at home in Easter this year before he 
contracted pneumonia in hospital

Eventually Mr James went into cardiac arrest on the morning of New Year's Eve and in accordance with the legal judgement hospital staff did not give CPR.

When Mr James's heart failed last August staff did give CPR and he made a good recovery.

Mr James died with his wife of 50 years May, 76, Julie and son Paul, 37, at his bedside.

Julie added: 'This is a direct consequence of the court judgement ten days ago. I think they have effectively been slowly withdrawing treatment ever since.

'As far as the family are concerned my dad has been a victim of neglect from day one - and ever since the court reversed his decision he was effectively sentenced to death.

'We are just all devastated that it happened so quickly.'

Legal battle: May, right, Julie arriving at the High court in London ahead of the ruling which will see David put on the care pathway
Legal battle: May, right, Julie arriving at the High Court in Londonlast month ahead of 
the ruling which saw David put on the care pathway

The case of Mr James further illustrates the furore surrounding the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).

Some relatives argue the controversial palliative care system is a way for medical staff to kill off the terminally ill and old.

The courts accepted a claim by the hospital that they were not invoking LCP in Mr James's case but his family are adamant in their belief he was secretly placed in the Pathway.

Julie added: 'After the latest court hearing doctors told us they would negotiate with us when it came to on-going treatment.

'We didn't like that word - this is a human life we are talking about, not buying a new car.

'We knew it was futile too, because ultimately no-one can tell a doctor what to do and what not to do.'

Back in the day: David and May James on their wedding day 29th Sept. 1962 outside Liverpool Registry Office
Happier times: David and May James on their wedding day in Liverpool in 1962

Mr James had played guitar on the 1974 hit who Do you Think you are by Candlewick Green and had also played alongside the likes of Shirley Bassey and the Beatles.

He was diagnosed with bowel cancer 11 years ago and given just six months to live but made a full recovery after chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.

He enjoyed good health until last May when he was admitted to his local hospital with suspected constipation.

The hospital wanted to give him a CT scan which, as it was a Bank Holiday, could not take place for a few days.

When his wife returned the following day she was told he had got hospital acquired pneumonia.

His condition worsened as he also developed a water infection and septicaemia before being admitted to intensive care three weeks later.

He then spent the rest of his life on a ventilator and suffered a stroke and cardiac arrest while his court case was still underway.

But his family have refuted the hospital's claims that he suffered 'multiple organ failure' several times.

Son Paul said: 'He fought and fought until the very end. And we will keep fighting to get justice for him.'

It is understood all treatment given to Mr James was in line with the court ruling, which concluded that CPR was not in Mr James' best interests if his condition deteriorated.

A hospital spokesman said: 'We've had close communication with Mr James' family 

throughout this process and if there are any issues they would like to discuss further we'd welcome that.

'Our thoughts and condolences are with the family at this difficult time.' 'Our thoughts and condolences are with the family at this difficult time.'


GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING:
Hospitals can seriously impede your chances of recovery.

In Ray Bradbury's surreal world, the firemen came to set fire to your books.

In our surreal world, the hospitals give you infections and the doctors fight to end your life! And take your life.

This is the 21st century? This is the 21st century!

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Liverpool Care Pathway – A Compulsory Medical Procedure?

This bears repeating -
“It would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept..." (The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt)
The LCP has been long discredited! The gentleman is discredited! This is more than just "one or two cases", Mr. Hunt!
Mr. Hunt, it is time for you to find another portfolio.

The Liverpool Care Pathway is a Medical 'end of life' procedure. This procedure is being used without knowledge and, where there is knowledge, without permission or consent. Can this be right?

Both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Lamb have gone on record as saying that it should not be used without knowledge. Would they not agree it should not be used without permission?

The manner in which this medical procedure is being enacted amounts to compulsory medical treatment. The Mental Health Act permits compulsory medical treatment under certain circumstances. In the matter of communicable (contagious) diseases/infections, compulsory medical treatment may also be permitted. That is not the case here.

In the matter of enacting other medical procedures, a consent form is procured and presented to the patient to sign. Why is this not so in the case of the LCP? Is it because the end result and outcome of the Pathway is death in any case? This is all most odd.

In the case of Mr. James, his wishes and those of his family have been overturned and disregarded by order of the court. How can that be?


The tragedy and sorrow of the James family is now complete. This is an outrage.
This is the Liverpool Echo -

Seriously-ill Liverpool grandad dies after hospital wins legal battle to withhold treatment


A DESPERATELY ill Liverpool grandad at the centre of a “right to life” court battle between doctors and family members has died.

Dad-of-three David James passed away in his hospital bed in the early hours of New Year’s Eve with his devoted family by his bedside.

His son Paul said his dad’s heart had stopped beating.
The family are devastated and bitter that medics went to court over the 68-year-old’s care. He lost his fight for life just over a week after the hospital trust won an appeal giving staff the right to withhold treatment.
Paul, 37, said: “It’s been absolutely horrendous at what was already a difficult time.
“And what gets me is that with this court case, all that’s been discussed, nothing has ever been brought up about why he ended up in that situation. And what led to his deterioration. That’s been pushed under the carpet.
“We’ve still got questions that need answers and we’re not going to stop.”
Mr James, who had brain and kidney damage, was well known on the Liverpool music circuit as a guitarist and had a hit record with a band called Candlewick Green.
Earlier in December the hospital where Mr James was being cared for – it cannot be named for legal reasons – went to court to try to get a judge to back their wish to withhold treatment should his condition deteriorate.
His family – led by his wife of 50 years May, 67 – initially successfully blocked doctors’ moves.

The hospital did not want to resuscitate him if he suffered a cardiac arrest or give him invasive support for low blood pressure or kidney failure if his condition worsened, claiming to do so would be “overly burdensome” and “futile”.
They said he was in a “minimally conscious state” and that it was highly unlikely he would ever leave the intensive care unit.
But Justice Peter Jackson declined the hospital’s application, saying Mr James’s quality of life was not non-existent or awful – despite being limited – and his family life was of the “closest and most meaningful kind”.
Quoting a previous case, he said: “A life from which others may recoil can yet be precious”.
He said: “Although Mr James’s condition is in many respects grim, I am not persuaded that treatment would be futile or overly burdensome or that there is no prospect of recovery. Although the burdens of treatment are very great indeed, they have to be weighed against the benefits of a continued existence.”
But the hospital took the case to the Court of Appeal on December 21, saying they needed clarification on Mr James’s ongoing treatment and won.
This meant they had the legal right to not offer “invasive” treatments they did not feel were in Mr James’s best interests.
The family planned to take Mr James’s case to the Supreme Court after Christmas before he suffered the fatal cardiac arrest.

Liverpool family’s fury and upset over dad’s death after court battle over his treatment



THE family of David James today spoke of their fury after their dad died just over a week after a hospital won a legal battle to withhold treatment if his health deteriorated.

Son Paul said the family was devastated and angry. Paying tribute to his dad, who had been in hospital since May, he said: “He fought and fought until the very end. And we will keep fighting to get justice for him.”

Paul said that his dad, who was left bedridden after developing pneumonia in hospital, had suffered sepsis (a severe infection) before his death. And although medics did not want to give him blood pressure treatment, he said they had relented at the family’s insistence but refused to increase the dose.
Paul said: “They said he had kidney failure. We had a lengthy discussion with a consultant and he said there was no way he would put him on dialysis and if he had a cardiac arrest they wouldn’t resuscitate him.
“We begged for the blood pressure treatment and they put him on a small dose. We asked for higher but they wouldn’t increase it. If they had I don’t think he would have died.”
Daughter Julie, 48, added that last Thursday their dad had looked “well” and was talking about clubs he had played. She said: “All along all we have wanted was for dad to have the chance, to have all the treatments on offer. Who knows whether he would have survived if he had had the higher dose or the kidney dialysis?”
She is also convinced her dad was on the Liverpool Care Pathway, although this has been flatly denied by doctors and the court accepted he was not on that plan.
A hospital spokesman said: "Mr James suffered a cardiac arrest and died at 5am. We’ve had close communication with Mr James' family throughout this process and if there are any issues they would like to discuss further we’d welcome that. Our thoughts and condolences are with the family at this difficult time.”
It is understood all treatment given to Mr James was in line with the court ruling, which concluded that CPR was not in Mr James’ best interests if his condition deteriorated.

The unnamed hospital insists that Mr.James was not put on the LCP. The unnamed hospital still has much to answer for.

Mr James walked into hospital seven months ago with a stomach complaint, but later that month became critically ill after contracting hospital-acquired pneumonia that led to multiple organ failure.
"This is one of the terrible things. Aside from the pneumonia, we’ve never really had a diagnosis. All we know is that from the moment he went into hospital, he went catastrophically downhill." (May James)
The unnamed hospital must bear some responsibility for this outcome, then. Has the unnamed hospital no apologies, no explanation ready for this family?
“And what gets me is that with this court case, all that’s been discussed, nothing has ever been brought up about why he ended up in that situation. And what led to his deterioration. That’s been pushed under the carpet. 
“We’ve still got questions that need answers and we’re not going to stop.”(Paul James)
Is there more that the unnamed hospital is not telling this brave family? Why was there such a determination to withhold treatment that they went to the court to enable them to do so?

When is enough enough? The decision not to use 'invasive' treatments has to lie with the patient. Or the patient's family. This patient, this family, clearly, had not given up on his life as easily as did his doctors.

Clearly, the decision not to use 'invasive' treatments has more to do with cost-cutting decisions and adherence to the precepts of an emerging Communitarian Health Service...

And also that there is something more to hide...?

Would it be improper to suggest the doctors wanted to bury their mistake(s)?

GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING:
Hospitals can seriously impede your chances of recovery.

In Ray Bradbury's surreal world, the firemen came to set fire to your books.

In our surreal world, the hospitals give you infections and the doctors fight to end your life! And take your life.

This is the 21st century? This is the 21st century!

Liverpool Care Pathway – Without Knowledge, Without Permission

“It would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept..." (The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt)

The LCP has been long discredited! The gentleman is discredited! This is more than just "one or two cases", Mr. Hunt!

The Liverpool Care Pathway is a Medical 'end of life' procedure. This procedure is being used without knowledge and, where there is knowledge, without permission. Can this be right?

Both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Lamb have gone on record as saying that it should not be used without knowledge. Would they not agree it should not be used without permission?

This is the Mail Online -

'They were treated like dogs waiting to be put down': Son of couple put on 'death pathway' blasts decision to withdraw treatment

  • War veteran Charles Futcher died after being put on Liverpool Care Pathway
  • Wife Hilda who was also put on pathway, died ten days after her husband
  • Son Charles Futcher said the decision was made without family consent
  • Mail revealed 60,000 patients die a year on pathway without their consent

A war veteran and his wife died within days of each other after being put on the Liverpool Care Pathway without consent.

Charles Futcher, 90, who fought in the battle of El Alamein, died alone in a care home after he was put on the controversial end-of-life process.

Ten days later his wife Hilda, 89, died in the same home after she too was given sedatives and had vital food and fluids withdrawn under pathway procedures.

Charles and Hilda Futcher died within ten days of one another after being put on sedatives while on Liverpool Care Pathway 'without family consent'
Charles and Hilda Futcher died within ten days of one another after being put on 
sedatives while on Liverpool Care Pathway 'without family consent'

Their son, Charlie, said his parents had been treated ‘like animals who needed to be put down’ by doctors who ‘seemed to take it upon themselves to get rid of them’.

The 62-year-old, who was at his mother’s side when she died, said the couple’s treatment had been grotesque and claimed they were put on the pathway without consultation.
Just two weeks before his death, Mr Futcher had celebrated his 90th birthday at a family party.

‘He was in a wheelchair and was in discomfort, but he was compos mentis and you could speak to him about anything, he was sharp,’ his son said.

Son Charles Jr said his parents were treated like 'animals who needed to be put down'
Son Charles Jr said his parents were treated like 'animals who needed to be put down'
When his sister received a telephone call from the care home to tell her that their father, a former ambulance driver, had been put on sedatives, Mr Futcher Jr did not think it meant he was seriously ill. As a result, the old soldier died without any of his family being present.

Mr Futcher Jr said: ‘I would not have wanted my father to suffer if he had been riddled with cancer or his diabetes was killing him, or if he had made the decision to go.

‘I would have just liked to have been there with him.

‘But somebody else was making those decisions and not telling us.’

After his father died, Mr Futcher Jr, a former teacher who owns a hotel in the Peak District of Derbyshire, lost all faith in those caring for his mother at the care home in Petersfield, Hampshire.

‘I just didn’t trust them so I stayed with her all the time,’ he said. ‘Her dementia was quite bad, but she knew people.

‘She couldn’t hold a conversation any more but she knew who I was and would give me a hug.’

Mr Futcher Jr claims that within days of his father’s death, care home staff stopped giving his mother food or fluids and her health deteriorated rapidly.

He said: ‘They were telling me that she’d forgotten how to eat and when I arrived there she was so frail.

‘I held her hand up to the light and could see the blood going through her veins, that’s the state they got her into. We had a family friend there and I said, “There’s no way that my mother is refusing food and we have to get some fluids in there”.

‘I went and bought a baby’s feeding bottle and put some water into it and she just sucked it down. You just couldn’t pull it out of her mouth.’

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt described the pathway as 'a fantastic step forward'
Praise: Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt described the pathway as 'a fantastic step forward'
Mr Futcher Jr claims the same GP who allowed his father to be put on the Liverpool Care Pathway authorised district nurses to put his mother on sedatives without his even having visited her.

He added: ‘It was a grotesque death. When I watched my mother die over those 33 hours she was so thin and dehydrated, it actually changed the shape of her head.

‘It’s like taking your animals to the vet. I’ve got dogs and they get old and you agree to put them down. It’s no different to that, no different at all.’

Norman Boyes, practice manager at the Swan Surgery in Petersfield, where Mr and Mrs Futcher’s doctor worked, said: ‘We are sorry if anyone is unhappy with the care and advice provided.

‘The practice has a formal complaints procedure, and we would encourage any of the family members who have any concerns to contact us directly.’

Mr Futcher Jr’s Czech-born mother was at a wartime refugee camp when she met his father, who was on duty there after serving in the Eighth Army under Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery.

The Liverpool Care Pathway is designed to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients in their final hours and can involve the withdrawal of foods and fluids as well as the use of sedatives such as morphine.

Yesterday the Mail revealed that up to 60,000 patients die on the pathway each year without giving their consent.

Yet Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has described the pathway as ‘a fantastic step forward’ – and dismissed concerns as based on matters ‘going wrong in one or two cases’.

‘It’s basically designed to bring hospice-style care to terminally ill people in hospitals,’ he said.

Mr Hunt added that many patients did not want to die ‘with lots of tubes going in and out of their body’ but would prefer their last moments to be dignified.


If this is 'Hospice-style' care, then God help us all!

Liverpool Care Pathway – This Is Inexcusable.

Dr Kate Granger: A dear lady whose tragic personal circumstances and predicament must excuse criticism and yet whose determined words and actions demand it.

Dr Kate Granger writes in the New Statesman -


As a terminally-ill patient I find these stories extremely worrying given what the next few months hold for me. If it were not for my background I would start to doubt the underlying motives of the healthcare professionals providing my end-of-life care. The irresponsible reporting I feel is gradually chipping away at the essential foundation of trust that we as patients should always have in our doctors.

I feel infuriated about the accusations of "backdoor euthanasia" undermining the care doctors and nurses provide on a daily basis. I also worry that the threat of litigation may drive skilled and compassionate clinicians away from the NHS. The challenge that now faces us as doctors is to overcome the misleading reporting and be able to discuss these issues calmly, objectively and attentively to patients facing death and their relatives.

There have clearly been episodes of care that have been sub-standard described in the papers. This saddens me that at such an important time in someone’s life the NHS is sometimes failing them, but I believe this cannot be blamed solely on the LCP. I feel it is because of inadequate communication or inappropriate use of the pathway with failure to follow the guidelines and lack of on-going training.

So, as someone dying of cancer in the foreseeable future and who looks after patients in the very final stages of their lives on a daily basis, the scare-mongering and sensationalist reporting of the issues involved - in particular the LCP - has caused me a great deal of personal anguish. It is going to take a monumental effort to restore public trust in our end-of-life care practices after the damage done by the media, but I believe we will in time restore that trust by expressing compassion and doing our absolute best for these patients and their families.

Kate Granger is a doctor, a cancer patient, and the author of The Other Side


There are people also in a state of personal anguish whose loved ones have suffered and perished because of this murderous protocol. 

There are people also infuriated whose loved ones have suffered and perished because of this murderous protocol. 

There are people also who worry that litigation embarked on by Managers and Doctors may cause loved ones to suffer and perish because of this murderous protocol.

There are people who make accusations, not merely of "back-door euthanasia", but of murder, whose loved ones have suffered and perished because of this murderous protocol. 

The National-socialist Health Service is rife with reports of sub-standard care and murderous actions by medical practitioners. Small wonder such a service has been tasked with responsibility to perform its protocols.

This is inexcusable.


We, whose loved ones have suffered and perished because of this murderous protocol, 
do hope that this year will see justice done and that a foundation of trust might be restored.

Liverpool Care Pathway – The Crucial Questions

Katharine Whitehorn writes in

The Guardian homeThe Observer home
The Observer, 

A thirst for palliative care: the Liverpool Care Pathway and withholding sustenance

Caring for the dying through the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway involves crucial questions about how to see them humanely through their last moments
Whether it is true or not that in the middle ages nuns who had sinned were shut up with no food or water, thus freeing their superiors from the sin of actual killing, we can be sure that nowadays we would of course condemn such hypocritical thinking. Or would we?
I'm not so sure now that the details of the well-known Liverpool Care Pathway have been explained to me. This is a procedure for the care of terminally ill patients, including children. When there is no hope of recovery and it's judged that the patient is going to die within three days, all treatment can be stopped except to alleviate pain. And that includes sustenance.
Which sounds all right, until you think of an ill person – an ill child – denied water. Hospital visitors, one of them tells me, are not allowed to do much except fix the flowers and read aloud. Though it is only unconscious patients, the medics assure me, who are ever denied water, I can't help but think of children parched with thirst.
Withholding liquid, of course, kills you quicker than withholding food, which was why hunger strikers take so long to kill themselves. If you believe in euthanasia, by the way, a painless death can easily be achieved with a glass of barbiturate. But that would be killing, wouldn't it – and so out of the question.

The 'terminally ill' patient: this is so oft repeated...

It is the patient diagnosed as 'dying', also, so oft embarked, sets forth upon the Pathway; it is not just the patient diagnosed with a terminal illness, an illness that will result in ending life, that treads that way.

This murderous practice, encouraged and demanded by the CQUIN payments, must cease. May the New Year see this come to pass.


The report highlights a myriad of challenges of mainstreaming palliative care: the fact that most common chronic diseases (unlike cancer) have uncertain prognoses, which makes assessment of the need for palliative care difficult... ("The Solid Facts: Palliative Care" edited by Elizabeth Davies and Irene J. Higginson - Ethos Perspectives) — May 2007 Soh Tze Min and Sheila Ng


Placing a patient on the Pathway "is a decision with an end in view. The patient is dying. Why? Because we say they are dying. Why? Because we have decided.” (Dr Philip Howard)


Without a doubt, end-of-life care is fraught with complexity and controversy. For example, there is continuing debate whether it devalues life by abandoning curative efforts too early, or is more respectful of life as it seeks to give the dying greater dignity and quality of life. While most respect individual choice and one's right to die with dignity, interpretations—whether individual, societal, cultural, religious or clinical—of what constitutes "quality of life" in one's dying years vary greatly. There is also a lingering perception that palliative care can result in substandard medical treatment, or is a way to end the burden of caregivers.
Ethos Perspectives — May 2007
Soh Tze Min and Sheila Ng
Social Policy