If you did this to a dog, they would put you in jail…

Socialized medicine death panels are real.

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to If you did this to a dog, they would put you in jail…

  1. rj says:

    This unnamed doctor is a pathetic excuse for a human, obviously he never learned one of the most most valuable life lessons most of us understand.
    How could you sleep at night knowing you have intentionally allowed a baby to suffer and die of dehydration over a period of 10 days.
    If you are man enough to determine that the life should cease, then be man enough to end the suffering.
    A massive dose of morphine or smome other drug, hell a pillow over the face or a hand on the chest.
    I’ve done it for animals, I’d do it for my wife, I’d do it for my child, I’d do it for myself.
    But I’d never intentionally starve a animal to death, much less a human baby.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Correct! There are two questions here:

      1) Is it okay to end the life of a terminally sick child who is suffering?

    That is open to hardcore debate and disagreement. If we stipulate, however, that the answer is yes, then there is a second question.

      2) Do you end that child’s life by increasing the suffering to the point of torture over a period of days or weeks?

    The answer to the second question is a resounding and emphatic NO!

  3. rj says:

    Right you are RD as to question 2 a resounding no.

    As to question 1 in my mind it has always been a quality of life issue, and the blind allegiance to life at any cost.

    If there is quality of life then life should continue, however when pain cannot be managed to the point where quality is reduced to merely drawing breath or having air forced into the lungs and food forced through a tube then the hard decision should be made.

    I personally believe that having those lessons displayed to me at a young age did cause my current outlook.

    I further believe that technology and success in the medical fields have created an illusion of near immortallity.

    Injuries and diseases that would have quickly ended life 100-150 yrs ago are no longer really life threatening if modern medical care is available.

    Families were more willing to accept the risk and results of self rule/liberty.

    Think of the responsibility a father took on when he put his family in a wagon and headed west. Knowing that any mishap could or would result in the death of wives, children.

    Now days govt mandates safety and removes responsibility from the individual. Rules established by govt attempt to negate the laws of nature to the point that idioticy is more the norm than common sense and self reliance.

    But I digress,
    having air shoved into your lungs while in a terminal ward being fed through a tube is not life but simply deathless death.

  4. James says:

    Giving doctors authority to end life creates so many moral conflicts I won’t even start. Those burdens should be on the family, and the individual.

  5. notamobster says:

    I agree, James.

    I can understand a doctor seeing the futility of pumping life into a child who has no hope of living. Torturing it on it’s way out? I can’t wrap my brain around a doctor being okay with that. A sociopath, sure. Maybe many doctors are sociopaths.

  6. Frank in Texas says:

    We are all suffering in this world to one extent or another. There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison for murdering others worldwide. Does a doctor or other healthcare official have any more moral right to murder someone than the run of the mill murderer on the street. I would say no. Euthanization is just a way of saying that money is more important than human life. In their view it is too costly to continue to keep someone alive so for the sake of saving money they end those lives. God will have a judgement for those who worship money more than human life. I wouldn’t want to be them. Amen.

  7. notamobster says:

    I don’t have any moral issues with euthanasia on an individual level. A husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter ending the suffering of a loved one is fine with me if the person being ended is okay with it.

    On an institutional level – it shouldn’t be allowed.

  8. RJ says:

    would a man putting a bullet into the head of a man helplessly pinned under a burning car doomed to explode be guilty of murder or mercifully ending his suffering burning and inevitable death.

    Please give me a bullet to the brain, thank you.

  9. RevoGirl says:

    @ Nota
    “On an institutional level – it shouldn’t be allowed.”
    To a point I agree with you, but after working as a geriatric nurse for years, I have seen too many patients who have lived for years with medical intervention. There are those that have zero quality of life who are warehoused in long term care. They are fed via feeding tubes, some are on vents. I personally would consider it a living hell and have discussed with my family my wishes for them to facilitate my demise. Not everyone has family willing or able to do this. I’m not advocating euthanasia based on financial considerations, but at what point do we continue heroic interventions just to keep someone alive.

  10. Notamobster says:

    I would say that it’s incumbent upon that person to insure that their wishes are known ahead of time. Medical professionals should never be given the power to choose just the empowerment to assist.

  11. RJ says:

    two words guys and gals

    Living Will.

    make your wishes clear so there are no issues for a spouse saying good bye and letting the doc pull the plug or injecting a powerful dose.

  12. RevoGirl says:

    Responsible adults make decisions based upon financial considerations their whole life, but because so many do not personally pay for healthcare costs there is no questioning as to cost vs benefit. If there was a procedure that cost 50,000 to prolong my life a month, I would prefer my family inherit the extra money, but would I feel the need to deny myself another month if it was going to be paid by insurance or the government? Most would not.

  13. fubar says:

    i read somewhere that the role of physicians used to be to treat illness and relieve suffering. Now, with the advent of technology – it’s to prolong ‘life’ to the point where it’s not living anymore.