It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Britain's Pathway to Euthanasia

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:02 PM
Is this the start of a Logans Run type idea to lower the population?

My own personal opinion is the the "medical profession" and i do not mean the professionals within medicine (as a whole) has Demonic beginings.

Anyway that aside, is it me or can anyone else see how sick and immoral this is (below)

A British "end of life" care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while "mercy killing" remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The "Liverpool Care Pathway" will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be "blocking beds" in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.

For years, Dr. Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys', King's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London, has been sounding the warning that the NHS has an unofficial system in place to authorise the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of "involuntary euthanasia" by deep sedation and dehydration.

On April 26, 2008, Dr. Treloar wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal, saying that the protocol known as the "Liverpool Care Pathway" for dying patients, is a blueprint for systematic euthanasia of disabled patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which allows for "continuous deep sedation" for patients judged to be incurable, was developed between the Royal Liverpool hospital and Marie Curie cancer hospices in order to standardise the medical approach to dying that could then be used as a template nationally. Combined with withdrawal of fluids, deep sedation leads quickly to death.

In 1999, the NHS dismissed Dr. Treloar's warnings as "ludicrous." But media coverage of families resorting to lawyers to stop the killing of their relatives has made it increasingly difficult for health officials to deny that there is an accepted euthanasia procedure in place. Dr. Treloar maintains that the motivation for killing patients judged to be incurable is not the relief of extreme suffering but the enormous pressure on the socialised health care system to make hospital beds available and the "triaging" of costly tax-sponsored medical care.

Since that time, the government passed legislation in 2005 - the Mental Capacity Act - that, following existing guidelines from the British Medical Association, allows doctors to withhold all "treatment," including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgement has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on the grounds that it is in the patient's "best interests" to die. If families try to intervene to save their loved ones lives, social services and police can be, and have been, called to intervene.

Since 2000, the instances of helpless patients being denied the basic necessities needed to sustain life are becoming more prominent in the news. Only this week, the BBC reported on the case of Mrs. Ellen Westwood, an 88 year-old woman whom doctors had decreed was 'due to die' in February, and whose life was saved only after the determined efforts of her family and clergy resulted in her being removed from the hospital.

Dr. Treloar wrote that the Liverpool Care Pathway threatens patients because its "eligibility criteria do not ensure that only people who are about to die are allowed on the pathway."

"They allow people who are thought to be dying, are bed-bound, and are unable to take tablets onto the pathway. In chronic diseases such as dementia, dying may take years, but
such patients may be eligible."

Elspeth Chowdharay Best, from the anti-euthanasia group ALERT, wrote recently, "Death by dehydration has been occurring for some years in Britain without the new official blessing [of the Liverpool Care Pathway protocol] and sometimes challenged by relatives."

The Sunday Times reported on May 18 this year that many families are "dismayed" that their cases are not being included in a long-term investigation into ten suspicious deaths of elderly patients in a convalescent home in Hampshire between 1996 and 1999. Mike Wilson told the Times that his 91 year-old mother, Edna Purnell, had been out of bed and using a walking frame when she was transferred to the Hampshire unit for what was supposed to have been a brief period of rehabilitation.

Records show that Mrs. Purnell was put to bed and given morphine. The hospital threatened Mr. Wilson with arrest when he was caught feeding his mother. She was judged to be "demented" and thus falling under the auspices of the Mental Capacity Act. Mr. Wilson told the times that his mother was not "demented" before she was given morphine: "We are in no doubt that this is what killed her."

Hospital are becoming killing fields in one way or another. How can we protect the elderly from these happenings?

(sorry if this is the wrong place mods, please move)


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:39 PM
Government tricks you into thinking that they are establishing institutions that will help you.
At first, they put on a show and say, "Look at how good we are. If you just give us more power and money, just imagine what we can do."
Everything seems fine and you go into a state of complacency.
Before you know it, the institutions start doing what the masterminds intended them for, in the first place.
Once you realize they are there to kill you, it is too late to do anything.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:50 AM
ive just seen another article,

what is going on? I know the NHS should save money but this is taking the Mick!

its heart wrenching but the medical professioni s trying to use these cases to condition us


posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:14 AM
you all have no idea - the LCP is in no way designed to 'kill' anyone - the disease process kills the patinet not the medical profession - the LCP is a tool developed by experts in end of life care to help generic workers give high qaulity care to vunerable patients - there are strict criteria to enter the pathway - drs must already have decided there is nothing else they can do for the patient - so should we just leave the cancer sufferer to writhe around the bed in agony, vomiting all over the place and lying in their own faeces? Or manage the patients last few hours of life in a calm and dignified manner - i know what i would choose for my loved one's - you make your own decisions.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 01:45 PM
i have to admit, i see the practicality of allowing terminally ill patients to die peacefully and without pain. but the procedure that they use to arrive at that decsicion seems to have an agenda.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:10 PM
The tactic being deployed now is to coerce relatives of the patient to give over control of the treatment to a "guardian".
Once they sign over their loved one, the treatment gets stopped and the patient dies.
They uses very evil means of coercion and there is an agenda.
These are people who have a sick attraction to killing people.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

yea, it just strikes me as odd that the families have no say... i never knew the law in Britain allowed that

posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 09:34 AM
"yea, it just strikes me as odd that the families have no say... i never knew the law in Britain allowed that" - the families DO have a say - if you had seen the Liverpool Care Pathway you would realise that 3 seperate goals highlight communication with family or carer - they have the opportunity to dicsuss their wishes and fears at all times - it even asks the staff to assess the families understanding of the current situation at least twice a day - i teach the LCP at a large hospital and it is beyond belief the misunderstanding you have of it! Before the LCP was introduced generic care staff had no idea how to give good end of life care - the way you all talk its as though everybody "just falls asleep nicely", death is inevitable, no one, and let me make this absolutely clear, no one is 'finishing off' patients - there are far too many safegaurds in place for that. eight years of hospice nursing you would not believe the amount of times i have been asked to 'end it' for someone - that is merely a cue for a discussion as to why they feel that way, not to go running for the syringe.
Please print this as this website needs a balanced view. I will be happy to debate at length on this subject if that is the case.
thank you

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by miriam0566

hello Miriam

I think the problem is who decides enough is enough, here in the UK you have a non resuscitation policy for the elderly in many places.


posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 04:11 AM
Hi David/Miriam, the policy is do not attempt resuscitation if it is thought to be medically futile - ie advanced disease, pre existing co-morbidities (lots of things adding up to conspire against you getting better) - the british public have a very skew-whiff, media tinged view of resus - i cant remeber the exact figures but if you have a cardiac arrest on a tv show you are 95% certain of recovery - as opposed to real life which is more like 5% chance.
These decisions are never taken lightly though and if anyone at all thinks there is hundreds of Doctors wringing their hands together thinking who can we let die today then you are very mistaken. If someone comes into a hospital acutely having had say a cardiac arrest then absolutely everything is done for them - on the other hand, an 89yr old with cancer who has been deteriorating for weeks, resuscitation would be pointless and futile - please try to see the balanced view - if someone is going around murdering patients then they are a 'serial killer',not a healthcare professional who is trying to do their best for suffering patients

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:50 AM

My understanding is that doctors etc are to prolong life??

my ex wifes mum worked in an retirement home and is was COMMON practice regardless of condition NOT to resuscitate.

here is another articel about witholding meds/treatments.'t-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy,-say-doctors.html

whilst i understand what you are saying it is unnatural selection. thinning of the herd if you will. someone is determining who is treated and who is not at some level be it policy or treatment.

The whole profession is there to HELP. if you withhold treatment you are abetting the onset of complications and possibly death.

just on case in point is where people are told to turn of life support etc as there is no possibility of life only for them to make a recovery.

here is the original oath

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!


[edit on 13/8/2008 by drevill]

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:50 AM
"just on case in point is where people are told to turn of life support etc as there is no possibility of life only for them to make a recovery.

that is the whole point - the decision is always made that there is no possibility of a recovery - this isn't quite as hard to decide as it sounds - there is a huge difference between a man having a heart attack in the street and being resuscitated back to life and a 90yr old 'retirement home resident' being pummeled by CPR - think about it - what was the reason for the collapse / death? Can that issue be resolved by thumping on someones chest and breathing down their throats? sometimes yes, most of the time, no.
It is the publics perception of resuscitation that makes you outraged - medical futility is a very real and not just some drs saying 'we cant be bothered'

new topics

top topics


log in