Responses

Download PDFPDF
Paper
Ethics and end of life care: the Liverpool Care Pathway and the Neuberger Review
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re:' Good Death'?

    Every person's death will be unique and their response to treatment not altogether predictable. The recent degrading way a man on 'death row' in USA was put to death, using drugs which prolonged his dying by around two hours was obviously grotesque . Doctors gave the injections. The limits of responsibility by prescribing doctors in UK if assisted dying becomes law, must be made clear to both persons receiving 'help'...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Neuberger review evidence

    You seem to have based your article on the evidence contained in the Neuberger Review [NR]. I note myself with some dismay that the actual evidence submitted to it was never published in full (names redacted of course), so we'll never know what complaints were actually received or considered by this panel. John Ellershaw (who wrote the LCP) was permitted to use his complaints databases in Liverpool as examples, accord...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    ' Good Death'?

    Since the first version was published in 2003, up until the LCP renal prescribing guidelines were issued in 2008, versions of the Liverpool Care Pathway issued to staff in Acute Hospitals mandated the use of Diamorphine for relief of both 'pain' and 'breathlessness'.

    Administering these drugs to anyone in renal compromise must have led to thousands of appalling and undiginified bad deaths - delirium and hallucinati...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Which version of Liverpool Care Pathway are you referring to?

    Seems odd that you gloss over the fact that there were two versions of this copyright-owned 'care' pathway, and that you only cite 'evidence' from a review that examined only one of them, whilst neatly skirting around the other.

    Version 11 had no consent process attached. Version 11 did not even inquire whether the patient and their family could speak English until after a decision to put them on the pathway had...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.