Cost of home care for 88 year old

margaretclare

I've read what you quoted above, and given my background in nursing/midwifery, I think that what the coroner wrote is very reasonable.

What the consultant wrote, that your mother was 'failing to respond to antibiotics' again, from my experience, sounds very reasonable. Any nurse or former nurse will tell you that there are instances where someone comes round from surgery and, as it appears initially, seems to be recovering but then, just when all looked rosy, a deterioration occurs and the person may just fade away. 'Oh he/she seemed to be getting better' is something we've all heard. Antibiotics do not always work as might be hoped/expected, especially in someone who has been in pain and suffering from a disease like cancer, which really knocks the immune system for six and is a drain on every body system. Sometimes there is no explanation.

I am sorry.

John_Pierpoint

cepheus wrote: »

Here is a piece about incorrect recording of death certificates in the Telegraph

The Telegraph makes the point that sloppy entries of cause of death could be hiding changes in the nation's health,

I notice in the Telegraph article, there is a reference to disease acquired as a result of previous employment. There can be serious amounts of compensation for the family riding on the correct identification of such disease.

I was able, with a bit of help from the internet and advice on "the nice people" thread to demonstrate that the hospital had misdiagnosed my late relative's cancer. As all he could be offered was palliative care , the misdiagnosis was immaterial in terms of his treatment.
So I did not kick up a huge fuss and try to get the death certificate changed, so future genealogists will think he died of the wrong cancer (hospital consultant's mistake) and he was born about 5 miles from his actual place of birth (my mistake).

I must confess I am a little unclear as to why you want the paperwork changed, if you are happy in your own mind that you know the verdict based on the balance of probabilities?

cepheus

Sorry, I thought I had explained the situation clearly in previous posts.

If someone is given two months to live and is refused continuing healthcare, then rapidly deteriorates within two days there is a slight suspicion that there may be something else going on other than cancer. However, I would probably give the Hospital the benefit of the doubt in this case (the same thing happened with my Father).

However, if in addition we are told that the patient is being antibiotics, then just before the downturn the consultant is concerned that the patient is 'refusing to respond to antibiotics' alarm bells start ringing when the direct cause of the death is written as cancer. Don't you agree?

On top of this it was me who found out that my Mother was refusing to take medication for periods although the antibiotics were given intravenously as far as I know.

The coroner was originally happy to rubber stamp the diagnosis mainly because my Mother was deteriorating when she was taken into hospital, but seemed disinterested in her much improved condition after the operation. To be fair though, I did make it clear that I would accept his judgement after my last letter, but he simply said he didn't take want the case futher at this stage to avoid distress, and through the case back at me asking me if I wanted to go on (I didn't copy out the whole letter only the technicalities).

I did explain to the coroner that I am only interested in getting the death certificate correct for the sake of improving procedures so other younger people might benefit not litigation.

The reason for the post is just to make sure there is not something glaringly obvious I have missed. However, I will probably conform to peer pressure and authority against my own judgement.

missile

cepheus wrote: »

... However, I will probably conform to peer pressure and authority against my own judgement.

Please do not do that, you may regret it later. Do what you feel is right, only then will you have a clear conscience.

monkeyspanner

It sounds like a bit of a cop out on the coroners part. Surely it is his responsibility to ensure the acuracy of what is recorded on the death certificate particularly if a relative has raised concerns about the recorded cause. To put the decision back on the relative is almost negligent. I would have to say the few certificates I have seen as executor of relatives have been very vague and could also have been challenged if anyone had been concerned about absolute accuracy and detail.

On your point about refusal of CHC and subsequent deterioration. Your suspicion is natural but I think the NHS could not acheive that level of organisation. It is bad enough just trying to communicate directly with ward staff as a relative, effective interdepartmental communication is virtually impossible.