The NHS “death pathway”
posted at 11:36 am on September 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Once government takes over health care, we won’t see death panels. We’ve been repeatedly assured of this by the Obama administration and the national media. At least thus far, they’re right, but our friends in the UK apparently aren’t as fortunate. A group of doctors have blown the whistle on the NHS for suspending hydration to supposedly terminally ill patients to hasten their demises:
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
These actions did not result from instructions in living wills, or from demands by next of kin. Patients got killed through sedated dehydration in order to save time and money for the resource-strapped NHS. It’s called the “death pathway,” initially designed as a humane way of hastening death in the final hours. However, the application has broadened to more diseases and diagnoses than its formerly narrow scope, and the triggers have become more ambiguous. That leads, these doctors warn, to a self-fulfilling prophecy of death when it might be avoided.
In fact, the incentives of the NHS appear to be driving those self-fulfilling prophecies. According to a study quoted in the Telegraph, 16.5% of all deaths in Britain came after continuous deep sedation, more than twice the rate of Belgium and the Netherlands, the latter of which has euthanasia as part of its policy. Given the financial difficulties of the NHS and the need to stretch resources, it seems unlikely that expediency has nothing to do with the sudden popularity of the “death pathway”.
When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result. Patients and their families no longer control the decisions made in health care, because they no longer control the compensation. Even if the “death pathway” doesn’t appear in the ObamaCare bill, the nationalization of heath care sets the stage for the kind of “comparative effectiveness” decisions that lead to its implementation.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I don’t think I exaggerate. The Democratic Party is run by/for SATAN.
Jeff from WI on September 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I wonder whether Abdel Baset ali Megrahi would have received the Mandatory Schiavo treatment had he been a loyal subject rather than a mass-murdering terrorist.
steveegg on September 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM
We are all Terry Schiavo.
Jorge Bonilla on September 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Like over 400 women giving birth in elevators and vans after being turned away from hospitals in Britain, hear me now, lefties:
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA.
NOT ON MY WATCH.
manofaiki on September 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Bret Baier is reporting on this on Special Report, and teased it with “Death Panels a reality in Britain”.
Sarah was right, Ed.
Brian1972 on September 3, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Might as well just kill people as soon as they are diagnosed. Why wait until they actually get sick. For that matter,, lets just start killing everyone over 65. That alone would fix social security! We’d all pay in and the government would never have to pay out!
Hey,, apply the same thing to health care! When your sick, no one treats you, they kill you! Sure,, your still taxed,, but that’s the beauty of the plan! It’ll never go broke!
JellyToast on September 3, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I lived in the UK and also worked for the Conservative party when they were last in power. I grew up in the UK and still visit regularly. I made use of the NHS, BUPA (private cover which Ed used to say did not exist in the UK). I currently have US cover which costs my employer a fortune and every time I visit the doctor they are trying to push drugs on me that have nothing to do with the treatment I am seeking. Twice in the last five years I was told I needed surgery when I did not… I simply changed a few things myself which alleviated the problem. When I was the risk manager for a different company I managed to get several staff members to make changes to their routine so they could avoid having the same procedure and it worked in every case. There are lots of ways to save money here in the US short of nationalizing health care.
rbj on September 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Families do participate in those decisions and, as stated in the actual policy, so does the patient wherever possible. Do you think US care is much different? The letter to the Telegraph was written because of legitimate concerns that the policy was being extended out of the type of treatment is was designed for. The Marie Curie Cancer Society is a charity which operates specialized cancer treatment clinics. It is not a government agency. The NHS adopted the program because the institutions were renowned as being of a very high standard. Ed’s suggestion that this is crafted by the government in order to put people to death is flat out wrong.
My grandfather was terminally ill with cancer here in the US and we had time to formulate a strategy with him and his doctors to end treatment along similar lines. This policy is not that different and the letter raises genuine concerns about how this end of life treatment could be used improperly in cases where recovery is possible. If the writers were concerned that this policy had anything to do with costs savings then why didn’t they say so… why didn’t the Telegraph say as much?
Incidentally, my sister in law was in a coma and on life support for nearly three months under NHS care. At no point was it even remotely suggested that any of the treatments should be reduced even though they worried that she would be brain dead as a result of the multiple organ failures and other complications. She recovered and continues to progress. That treatment would have cost a fortune in the US even with a very robust insurance policy… she would be financially ruined. Another friend of mine here in the US had a very similar issue… but no insurance. The hospital told his sister that he had no chance of recovery after being in a coma for two weeks. Per that advice, the plug was pulled on his life support but rather than dying he lived on and embarrassed doctors resumed treatment when he did not die. I am going on a bike ride with him tomorrow despite them telling the sister he would never have a normal life again.
These anecdotal stories could probably be swapped around in many cases and it really comes down to the advice of doctors in each case but the one thing that is different is that in the UK you won’t get a bill. Do a little research into the actual policy and where it was formulated.
lexhamfox on September 3, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I was taken to (my American) emergency room with complications including severe dehydration despite the fact I was forcing myself to drink lots of fluids. The doctor told me I had reached the point of no return for dehydration so that only an IV could hydrate me. She said I would have died without the IV. I was conscious and with family
Had my doctor estimated my total physical condition was hopeless, under the NHS guideline they could have pulled the IV which would guarantee my demise. Had my situation prevented me from defending myself, had I been more sickly and elderly, the doctor would own my life in the NHS
There is no reason to pull an IV until the flatline except to speed up death. If a patient doesn’t want an IV that is their right. It should not be a decision for a doctor
Our hospitals routinely insert IVs as a precaution in case some infusion might be required. Pulling it is a joke.
entagor on September 4, 2009 at 11:31 AM
entagor on September 4, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Read the policy.
lexhamfox on September 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2