PDA

View Full Version : NHS: Now sick babies go on death pathway



Acid Trip
11-30-2012, 02:44 PM
This is so insane it's almost unbelievable. Very old or very young + health problems = just die and save the government some money!

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

http://i.imgur.com/G1OpY.jpg
Sick children and babies are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial 'death pathways' (file photo)

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

Medical critics of the LCP insist it is impossible to say when a patient will die and as a result the LCP death becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it is a form of euthanasia, used to clear hospital beds and save the NHS money.

http://i.imgur.com/yHdal.jpg
The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

‘I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby.’

According to the BMJ article, the doctor involved had presided over ten such deaths in just one hospital neonatal unit.

In a response to the article, Dr Laura de Rooy, a consultant neonatologist at St George’s Hospital NHS Trust in London writing on the BMJ website, said: ‘It is a huge supposition to think they do not feel hunger or thirst.’

The LCP for children has been developed in the North West, where the LCP itself was pioneered in the 1990s. It involves the discharge to home or to a hospice of children who are given a document detailing their ‘end of life’ care.

One seen by the Mail, called ‘Liverpool Pathway for the Dying Child’ is issued by the Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS Trust in conjunction with the flagship children’s hospital Alder Hey. It includes tick boxes, filled out by hospital doctors, on medicines, nutrients and fluids to be stopped.

The LCP was devised by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool for care of dying adult patients more than a decade ago. It has since been developed, with paediatric staff at Alder Hey Hospital, to cover children. Parents have to agree to their child going on the death pathway, often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’.

Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the use of death pathways for children.

'‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die'

She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.

‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

Alder Hey confirmed that children and babies are discharged for LCP end of life care ‘after all possible reversible causes for the patient’s condition are considered’.

‘There is a care pathway to enable a dying child to be supported by the local medical and nursing teams in the community, in line with the wishes of the child patients, where appropriate, and always their parents or carers.’ Alder Hey said children were not put on the LCP within the hospital itself.

Teresa Lynch, of protest group Medical Ethics Alliance, said: ‘There are big questions to be answered about how our sick children are dying.’

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘End of life care for children must meet the highest professional and clinical standards, and the specific needs of children at the end of their life.

'Staff must always communicate with the patient and the patient’s family, and involve them in all aspects of decision making.’

FBD
11-30-2012, 03:03 PM
when the money's all gone, the death panels come out...I still cant believe people think linking Obamacare to this was just some silly mischaracterization. the verbiage is in there, and in the future when the only way to keep it solvent is to kill quality of care, those on the lowest rungs of the totem pole wind up having doctors with incentive to let them die.

fuck socialized medicine.

PorkChopSandwiches
11-30-2012, 04:23 PM
We need to weed out the weak anyway, what other species keeps its failures around. :idk:

MrsM
11-30-2012, 04:44 PM
I know this sounds cruel but the other option based on the fee based system is that families in this situation are offered treatments that will most likely never work and rack up debt that they cannot afford. It is then up to the insurance companies "death panels" to determine if treatment is covered at all.

In all honesty - I would much rather have a hospital panel determine the outcome then an insurance panel.

I know that in Canada - and yes I have had friends who lost their baby - the hospital did everything they could to save and prolong life. The parents were always in control of the treatment and they were given options. At some point prolonging the known outcome becomes cruel not only for the child, but also for the family.

Muddy
11-30-2012, 05:30 PM
We need to weed out the weak anyway, what other species keeps its failures around. :idk:

Sad and cruel but unfortunately true.

PorkChopSandwiches
11-30-2012, 06:34 PM
It may be sad but wtf . Look at the quality of "life" these people end up with

Lambchop
11-30-2012, 06:57 PM
Why does the US have such a high infant mortality rate by comparison if a private system will help these ill babies? Most families would not be able to afford the extortionate fees for specialist treatment. At least with a social system it isn't about how much money the patient has but how ill they are and how much treatment can be provided without crippling the system.

The issue here is that people are extremely against euthanasia in this country and do not understand that if someone is suffering and medically irreparable, a short and painless euthanisation would be best for the patient. As a result, the doctors have to use other methods that will take much longer to reach the same outcome while preventing a public outcry.

Things could be a lot easier.

Doc: I'm afraid that we cannot help the patient any further. We have tried all approaches and no positive outcome has been reached. The patient will be suffering in this condition.

Guardian/relative: Please euthanise the patient to prevent suffering

----> Dr. injects patient, done.

Lambchop
11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
Check this shit out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-19797634

Guy had 'locked-in syndrome' - 0 QUALITY OF LIFE - government refused to help him with euthanasia. He got what he wanted by refusing food and suffered with a fatal case of pneumonia as a result. They'll let the guy starve to death but won't ease his suffering by using a less painful method.

WTF!

FBD
11-30-2012, 07:59 PM
Check this shit out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-19797634

Guy had 'locked-in syndrome' - 0 QUALITY OF LIFE - government refused to help him with euthanasia. He got what he wanted by refusing food and suffered with a fatal case of pneumonia as a result. They'll let the guy starve to death but won't ease his suffering by using a less painful method.

WTF!

agreed on these somewhat narrowly described cases. both of yours as well as mrsM's.

but there's a whole other side to this - namely that we're saddled with layers and layers of obfuscation with 3rd party or single payer systems like this. prices get wildly distorted - why was deep's argument "oh we spend twice as much for on average lower results" - entirely neglecting to address the reason why we spend twice as much in the first place!

our price discovery mechanism is super broken - and making it into a single payer national healthcare system will merely ensure that accurate pricing is NEVER realized.

Acid Trip
11-30-2012, 08:13 PM
Imagine if we could eliminate the middle man (insurance) and just pay our doctors/hospitals directly.

You know, the way it was done for 1000's of years before a group of idiots (politicians) decided that we must "be protected from doctors and hospitals" by inserting a 3rd party (insurance companies) as a buffer.