LiverpoolCarePathwayreview:responsetorecommendationsPublished26June

2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/liverpoolcarepathwayreviewresponseto
recommendations

SummaryOpinion.

On reading the responses from the various organisations, it appears that all have
misunderstood the aim of the original review into the unfortunate and unlawful deaths
caused through the Liverpool Care Pathway. The recommendations have been made for
the dying patient. Indeed, the title states as follows One Chance to Get it Right: how
health and care organisations should care for people in the last days of their life. While
the recommendations are laudable for the patient who is actually dying, it does nothing for
those who are not dying and therefore require protection. Despite anecdotal evidence that
huge numbers of patients lives were shortened needlessly, the Department of Health has
not conducted a basic audit of the prevalence involuntary euthanasia nor has it arranged
for safety measures in place to ensure the public are protected. In addition, the Royal
CollegesandGeneralMedicalCouncilhavenotrecognisedtheneedtodothis.

The care of those actually dying was never under dispute. What was under scrutiny was
the failure of the health service to protect those who were not dying. The emphasis of these
recommendations appears highly confused. The recommendations do not prevent those
who are not dying from being unlawfully killed through the Liverpool Care Pathway. No
organisation appears to have accepted the patient safety limb to the care of ill patients.
There is of course a huge difference between the ill and the dying patient. Misusing the
LiverpoolCarePathwayremainsaclearandpresentdanger.

The General Medical Council for instance has made no commitment to review the
definition of what constitutes dying nor have they promised to improve education in this
area. Moreover it has never acknowledged the role of the doctor in patient safety in the
event the patient is misdiagnosed as dying. The organisation appears to have forgotten
that the primary role of the doctor is to so all in their power to uphold the principles of
patientsafety.

In summary, the recommendations will make no difference to protecting patients or

improving patient safety. The public are therefore in the same position there were always in
prior to the LCP review. The directives/recommendations etc issues are for palliative care
patients. The original review was not done to improve palliative care, it was done to protect
patientsfrominvoluntaryeuthanasia.Thisappearstohavebeenforgottenorsetaside.

It seems that no organisation has accepted that involuntary euthanasia and the misuse of
the LCP is a clear and present danger and a risk to patient safety. This complete lack of
insightisatragedyforthepublicatlarge.

The cases of involuntary euthanasia and hastening of lives will continue. The Department of
Health will be responsible for the failure in patient safety as it has been warned repeatedly
not only by doctors like myself but by many many members of the public. To this day,
nothing has been learned from the deaths of patients mistakenly placed on the Liverpool
Care Pathway. In conclusion, there has been no accountability of those who have purposely
ormistakenlymisusedthepathwayandendedlives.

Regards

DrRitaPal
WhistlebloweroninvoluntaryeuthanasiaintheNHS
Submissionstotheoriginalreview
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234338
SecondAuthortoWhistleblowingandPatientSafety
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234338