parliamentary information office
hospital trusts have been paid millions of pounds in recent years for hitting targets associated with use of the Liverpool care Pathway.
In some cases trusts have set goals explicitly requiring them to ensure that a set number of dying patients are placed on the pathway"
Who paid this money (names?) and which trusts (names?) set goals for numbers?
We ought to be told these things.
In any case of misuse, criminal penalties should follow - and all past cases should be investigated.
parliamentary information office
I have actually seen it referred to as 'passive euthanasia' by a senior clinician in a medical article hosted by a renowned UK institution, and frankly, it is a more honest and accurate description than calling it a 'care pathway'.
parliamentary information office
It appears to be a varied and variable practice, whose misapplication is only emphasised by terming it a 'Care Pathway.
parliamentary information office
It is not whether or not it is a good practice that is at issue, but why it is apparently not being applied correctly in accordance with its own terms.
parliamentary information office
There is something morally wrong with encouraging NHS Trusts to increase the number of patients receiving this so-called "care", it is tantamount to incitement to murder.
With this in mind, my wife and I have asked both our daughters to ensure that a second, independent, opinion is obtained should either of us have the misfortune to be seriously ill in hospital. There have been at least two cases reported in the press recently where the family of a "dying" patient on the "Care pathway" took action to have treatment restored, with the result that the patients were at home recovering within days. Two potential errors is two too many.
parliamentary information office
An even better article.
I would mention that 'passive euthanasia' isn't illegal in the UK. The problem appears to be that the LCP appears to be being used as a euphemism to cover instances when the procedure being applied would be more correctly termed 'passive euthanasia'.
As the article mentions, passive euthanasia and the LCP have different intentions. To make matters worse if the patient has been placed on the LCP then a signed document will exist confirming this, so there should never be any confusion between the two procedures.
hospital trusts have been paid millions of pounds in recent years for hitting targets associated with use of the Liverpool care Pathway.
In some cases trusts have set goals explicitly requiring them to ensure that a set number of dying patients are placed on the pathway"
Who paid this money (names?) and which trusts (names?) set goals for numbers?
We ought to be told these things.
In any case of misuse, criminal penalties should follow - and all past cases should be investigated.
parliamentary information office
I have actually seen it referred to as 'passive euthanasia' by a senior clinician in a medical article hosted by a renowned UK institution, and frankly, it is a more honest and accurate description than calling it a 'care pathway'.
parliamentary information office
It appears to be a varied and variable practice, whose misapplication is only emphasised by terming it a 'Care Pathway.
parliamentary information office
It is not whether or not it is a good practice that is at issue, but why it is apparently not being applied correctly in accordance with its own terms.
parliamentary information office
There is something morally wrong with encouraging NHS Trusts to increase the number of patients receiving this so-called "care", it is tantamount to incitement to murder.
With this in mind, my wife and I have asked both our daughters to ensure that a second, independent, opinion is obtained should either of us have the misfortune to be seriously ill in hospital. There have been at least two cases reported in the press recently where the family of a "dying" patient on the "Care pathway" took action to have treatment restored, with the result that the patients were at home recovering within days. Two potential errors is two too many.
parliamentary information office
An even better article.
I would mention that 'passive euthanasia' isn't illegal in the UK. The problem appears to be that the LCP appears to be being used as a euphemism to cover instances when the procedure being applied would be more correctly termed 'passive euthanasia'.
As the article mentions, passive euthanasia and the LCP have different intentions. To make matters worse if the patient has been placed on the LCP then a signed document will exist confirming this, so there should never be any confusion between the two procedures.
Yearbook News
No comments:
Post a Comment