The Liverpool Care Pathway

It has come to the Writer's notice of a rumour that the NHS has given £30m to the NHS to practice this method of nursing and care. On making enquiries whether this rumour is true, it transpires that this may only be a misunderstanding of the facts.

However it is a fact that the Government has awarded a certain amount to Hospices for palliative care. This is to alleviate the suffering and pain experienced by terminally ill patients. Now the worry is that there is a very fine line between rendering palliative care and practising the Liverpool Care Pathway which requires the withholding of food and water and indeed painkillers where it is deemed that the patient will not, in any case survive.

Palliative care should be rendered to those suffering terminal diseases but this does not mean that those with cancer and similar diseases should be denied food and water and dignified comfort. The Liverpool Care Pathway is it seems, a euphemism for euthanasia which is still a crime, illegal in this country. It leaves patients at the mercy of hospital staff and family. Many suggest that this is O.K. on condition that the family have been informed. This is most unacceptable and dangerous. Many families, it is sad to say, would welcome the enforced departure of their elderly members and the State should recognise this and behave in an ethical and protective way.

The elderly are most vulnerable and The Liverpool Care Pathway is not the way to deal with the problems of the terminally ill elderly who, if we are not careful, will fall victim to the unscrupulous many of whom regard the elderly as an unwelcome burden on society.

Elections

With the recent elections revealing how uncertain the electorate has been as to who should govern this country of ours, the usual statements about people using their votes come to the fore.

There is a strong feeling that everyone should use their vote, particularly when one considers that there was a time when the ordinary man did not have that privilege and that women too were denied the opportunity of choosing who should rule them until very recently.

Many suggest that those people not bothering to vote should be summonsed or pressured in some other way to use their ballot paper. Given the the circumstances mentioned above, this attitude is understandable but such a draconian measure appears to smack of an attack on the individual's right to remain outside politics for one reason or another.

It would seem a much more fairer idea for the voter to be given a chance to show that he feels there is no-one for whom he could offer his support. To this end perhaps the ballot paper could have a box at the bottom of the list of candidates'names for abstention. This would demonstrate the fact that if there had been a candidate worthy of a vote the abstainer would have elected him or her but that since the voter can see no-one worthy of consideration he displays this fact by abstaining. For instance if the candidates were Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, quite clearly a conscientious elector would not favour any one of these. In this case, his cross in the abstention box would show his willingness to attend the polling station and vote but that there was no-one he considered fit to take a representative position in this country.

To summons someone for disinterest or being in a genuine dilemma is not the answer and would involve expensive and useless prosecution but allowing a voter to declare his wish to abstain allows the voter a declaration and carries a clear message to all candidates.