Could this ever happen in England?

vicker

Aunt died few months back and had a coma induced after a severe fall over Xmas.

Food and drink both withdrawn after 5 days in the coma. Mum said it was horrible as she watched the body shut down over a period of 7 days.

I cannot believe the method used - seemed so barbaric - made me reconsider my views on end of life care.

Mojisola

vicker wrote: »

Aunt died few months back and had a coma induced after a severe fall over Xmas.

Food and drink both withdrawn after 5 days in the coma. Mum said it was horrible as she watched the body shut down over a period of 7 days.

I cannot believe the method used - seemed so barbaric - made me reconsider my views on end of life care.

We went through the same experience with an elderly relative. He wasn't in a coma but was kept so heavily dosed up that he might as well as been.

I can't believe how it's considered appropriate to let someone die through withdrawing food and liquids but totally illegal to give them something so that they can die peacefully.

If I allowed my terminally-ill dog to linger for a week without food or water, I could be prosecuted.

I sincerely hope that by the time I reach that stage, I (or my relations) will have the option of an fatal injection.

Person_one

Mojisola wrote: »

I can't believe how it's considered appropriate to let someone die through withdrawing food and liquids but totally illegal to give them something so that they can die peacefully.

Its illegal to give them something with the intention of killing them, but most dying patients end their lives on several narcotics and sedatives, often including high doses of diamorphine. Everything is done to make it as peaceful and pain free as possible.

I actually think our attitudes to death and old age need a bit of an adjustment in this country, we are shielded from the reality of them until bam, we have to confront them head on with our loved ones with no preparation and no cultural backup.

Old age does make us dependent on others, it weakens our bodies and sometimes our minds, our needs change and there is nothing undignified about requiring help with personal care and so on.

Death is even more hidden from us, its often cruel and ugly and we don't really know how to accept it and let it happen sometimes. Forcing food on dying cancer patients because it upsets you that they aren't eating is one example of this. Only a few decades ago people used to die at home and you'd have seen all your grandparents and possibly a few other family members die before you reached adulthood, possibly helping to lay the bodies out so you learned to do it for when your parents went. Dying has become a clinical process behind curtains, and I think people have unrealistic expectations of what it will be like.

Mojisola

Person_one wrote: »

Its illegal to give them something with the intention of killing them, but most dying patients end their lives on several narcotics and sedatives, often including high doses of diamorphine. Everything is done to make it as peaceful and pain free as possible.

I actually think our attitudes to death and old age need a bit of an adjustment in this country, we are shielded from the reality of them until bam, we have to confront them head on with our loved ones with no preparation and no cultural backup.

Old age does make us dependent on others, it weakens our bodies and sometimes our minds, our needs change and there is nothing undignified about requiring help with personal care and so on.

Death is even more hidden from us, its often cruel and ugly and we don't really know how to accept it and let it happen sometimes. Forcing food on dying cancer patients because it upsets you that they aren't eating is one example of this. Only a few decades ago people used to die at home and you'd have seen all your grandparents and possibly a few other family members die before you reached adulthood, possibly helping to lay the bodies out so you learned to do it for when your parents went. Dying has become a clinical process behind curtains, and I think people have unrealistic expectations of what it will be like.

The care that my relative received was as good as anyone could receive and his death was quiet - from our point of view - because he was so heavily sedated. None of us would have tried to force food or liquids into him but neither was the decision to stop taking them his or ours.

The level of pain relief and sedation he was given stopped him eating and the medical staff made the decision to withdraw liquids. At that point he was virtually dead. It was only a matter of time. If he had been given liquids, he would have lingered longer which was to nobody's benefit, especially his, and none of us would have wished that on him.

It's the dual standard that I hope changes - we'll withdraw liquids and let him die but we won't increase his pain relief to the point where he can die today.

The first method may be passive but the result is exactly the same as the second. It doesn't help people live; it makes their death longer.

suki1001

zaksmum wrote: »

My father was always prone to eating something then hacking it back up again, giving it another good chew and swallowing it again.

It sounded horrendous - but he was my father and that's just the way he was. The girl who put him on the pureed diet was really thrown the first time she watched him eat, although we explained he'd always done that.

So for the last weeks of his life he not only didn't get the pureed diet, but was offered nothing in it's place. Even his cups of tea made me sick to look at them. You could, quite literally, stand a spoon up in them. I couldn't have drunk them...who could?

He gave up in the end. The nurses said he had hypoxia confusion (confusion caused by lack of oxygen) so he didn't even ask for food anymore. We all just did shifts at his bedside, desperately trying to make sure whatever food was permitted was actually offered.

A few days before he died, he asked if he could have an egg sandwich. The staff reluctantly agreed, and took him off the pureed diet. He really enjoyed it, no sign of any choking. The update to his notes said "Family refusing to agree to pureed diet".

I could go on. My poor, proud,strong, hardworking and dignified father was reduced to a pitiful pathetic shadow of himself. When he asked for help to go to the toilet, nurses said "Just do it in the bed" and he physically couldn't.

I could write a book...but it won't bring my father back.

Kind of makes you dread getting old and frail, doesn't it? Or is that just me?

All stroke patients have to have cups of tea that look horrible, but there is a reason for. Some people I work with haven't had oral fluids for years (or very little) because of the risk of choking is high. I worked with several people who could only ever have pureed food because of the risk of choking. They were given varying levels of it, depending on how severe the disability. You really don't want to see what happens if they get ill from this, because it is a killer.
Regardless whether you didn't think your father was at risk to choking, the staff have to follow medical procedure. They have to write family refused pureed food, because they are accountable if things go wrong, legally if it's not written down it didn't happen, you could have turned round and said "we never said he could have an egg sandwich". They are the ones who would have been blamed if your father had of choked. Even if he had a bad cough, he was still at risk of choking.

Much as I don't think it is very nice that people have to eat pureed food and drinks that aren't liquid, it is there for a reason.

suki1001

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

Yes, it does happen in England - but this is done in a humane way under sedation - the patient does not feel hungry/thirsty or suffer in any way.

I wish that were true - the medical staff looking after my grandmother, gave her nothing. It was the worst week of my life last year, watching her dying. She couldn't take any fluids or food. The nurses refused to give her anything, in case it caused her death. Years ago this happened routinely, but now it is not allowed.

lolly_896

This has happened to both of my Grandmothers - within weeks of each other.

Both needed operations "That they wouldnt survive" so starved basically. Give them the op, give them the chance!

Person_one

lolly_896 wrote: »

This has happened to both of my Grandmothers - within weeks of each other.

Both needed operations "That they wouldnt survive" so starved basically. Give them the op, give them the chance!

I'm sorry, but it can be cruel to put people through major surgery they have very little chance of surviving, let alone making a full recovery from.

poet123

Person_one wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it can be cruel to put people through major surgery they have very little chance of surviving, let alone making a full recovery from.

I agree with this but, and it is a big but, removing fluids etc,in a bid to hasten the end is equally cruel and often the patient does have periods of lucidity when they know what is happening, and that is devastating to see as a loved one. Until you have felt that sheer helplessness in a personal capacity I don't think any medical professional can fully understand how it actually feels.

WolfSong2000

I remember this happening to my grandfather when I was a child...my mother was utterly distraught as they had decided to withdraw food/water from him whilst he was still conscious and aware of what was going on...apparently his tongue was swollen from dehydration and he was begging the medical staff for water, but they refused to give it to him and told my mother she was also not to give him any liquid.

It's experiences like this that make me pro-euthanasia. If a patient is at the stage where doctors deem it necessary to withdraw all sustenance and slowly kill them, why not do the humane thing and end their suffering quickly and painlessly? I swear to God we treat dying animals with more dignity in this country than we do people.