Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


The big question: do criticisms of the Liverpool Care Pathway detract from the benefits it brings to patients?


'The statement says the pathway should not “hasten or delay death”' No, it doesn't say that. See (from the other contemporary piece) what I've just posted about what the consensus statement actually does say: There is also something unhelpful in the consensus statement: The Liverpool Care Pathway does not: … Hasten or delay death, You can regard that as being a flawed statement on logical grounds (compared to what alternative ? How do you prove it ?) or, as I do, as being generally unhelpful in that it does not in any way advance the argument regarding behaviour around death. Two of the more fundamental problems re ‘the rules for dying’ are the issues around patient consent, and the complication introduced by section 4(5) of the MCA (you can see 4(5), shown next, as alternatively saying ‘assisted suicide is illegal’): 4(5) Where the determination relates to life-sustaining treatment he must not, in considering whether the treatment is in the best interests of the person concerned, be motivated by a desire to bring about his death. So, it would have progressed the understanding, if the consensus statement had actually said, instead of the wording it uses, this: The purpose of the Liverpool Care Pathway is not to: … Hasten or delay death, Think about this – it isn’t hard. General anaesthesia has a known risk of death associated with it, but it is still perfectly legal because it is necessary for operations. Very large morphine doses might in fact ‘speed death’ but if they are given for the purpose of pain/distress relief, then they appear to be legal (see ‘motivated’ in 4(5) above). You don’t need to illogically claim that the LCP has no effect on when a patient dies – you only need to properly get either patient consent for the treatments, or else to correctly work through the intricacies of the Mental Capacity Act’s Section 4 test. As the GMC so plainly pointed out in ‘Treatment and care towards the end of life’ in section 14(c), ‘The patient weighs up the potential benefits, burdens and risks of the various options as well as any non-clinical issues that are relevant to them. The patient decides whether to accept any of the options and, if so, which. They also have the right to accept or refuse an option for a reason that may seem irrational to the doctor or for no reason at all.’ ‘The patient weighs up the potential benefits, burdens and risks of the various options’ – as that meerkat on TV says, ‘simples’ !

Posted date

4 October, 2012

Posted time

1:24 pm