Read the policy.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

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.

In another example of how Britain’s socialized health care is a bad system, it’s reported that NHS is letting patients die who may not even be close to death at all (Hat tip: The American Thinker):…

You have nothing important to add to this thread. Now piss off.

Dino64 on September 3, 2009 at 2:11 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.

Sarah was right, Ed.

THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA.

NOT ON MY WATCH.

Save money Obama–death panels and abortions!!! What a humane President.

mobydutch on September 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I don’t think I exaggerate. The Democratic Party is run by/for SATAN.

No. The author says that the policy is the result of a ‘laudable’ attempt to prevent the over treatment of dying patients. At no point in the article or the letter are cost saving cited as a reason for the LCP program. The LCP program was not a government program. It was put together by the Marie Curie Cancer society.

preventing “overtreatment” (and what, hydration is overtreatment now?) is cost control. Why else do it unless you are trying to control costs.

Actually the decision is not made by administrators or the government. The decision to put a patient on LCP is made by “the entire team” and the policy itself states that the patient and the patients family should be included in the decision process.

And the policy comes from the government/administrators. Nice to actually give the family & patient a seat at the table, even if they can’t veto it.

Really weak argument.

Keeping a person sedated so that they won’t be able relay how they are actually feeling, and then the only voice that can vouch for the “deterioration” in their condition is the government funded doctor/hospital.

red winger on September 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Sure, and then their organs can be harvested, and that’ll reduce the need for having to ration transplants so much.

Wait, haven’t I seen this in a book before?

Ah, yes… “COMA”, by Robin Cook.

Sorry, but you’re clueless. I lived for 38 years of my life in that dungheap of a country and I’m telling YOU what the NHS really is. You have nothing important to add to this thread. Now piss off.

Patients got killed through sedated dehydration in order to save time and money for the resource-strapped NHS.

No. The author says that the policy is the result of a ‘laudable’ attempt to prevent the over treatment of dying patients. At no point in the article or the letter are cost saving cited as a reason for the LCP program. The LCP program was not a government program. It was put together by the Marie Curie Cancer society.

When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result.

Actually the decision is not made by administrators or the government. The decision to put a patient on LCP is made by “the entire team” and the policy itself states that the patient and the patients family should be included in the decision process. The letter by concerned experts does not at any point suggest even vaguely that the policy has anything to do with saving money.

Do a little more research about this Ed instead of filling in the blanks with your own anti-NHS fantasies.

It seems that every day our country is being destroyed from the inside more and more. Anyone who doesn’t believe that this death “assistance” is at least strongly possible is delusional.

search4truth on September 3, 2009 at 1:51 PM

We are all Romans now. Romans sacrified their Liberty for Bread and Games while forgetting more and more about their Duty to the Republic.

I wasn’t aware congress was voting on implementing the British NHS. Thanks for clearing that up Ed.

ernesto on September 3, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Bawney Fwank admitted that the public option was a backdoor to socialized (gubmint run) health care. And if anyone knows about backdoors, it’s……..

People have often asked me why I am bitter towards the NHS. I think it may be becoming more obvious by the day, and when it arrives here eventually, you’ll all know why I’m so angry and so bitter and so fearful of Barack Hussein Obama.

If ObamaCare is pushed through, which I think it is likely be, this country will be in the sh*t for years to come and we will all suffer enormously for this man’s own belief in his manifest destiny, arrogance and hatred of conservatism nd reason.

Yes. Don’t drown your fears in booze. Confront the evil government.

rbj on September 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM

The choice is mutually exclusive? Drats!

Once government takes over health care, we won’t see death panels.

Yes we will.

Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

Sarah Palin is right, just admit it for crying out loud.