Care Home Residents and blanket DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) Order During the Pandemic.

 I've blogged before about my wife's experiences in care homes during the pandemic. 

She noticed that DNRs were being written for residents of the various care homes she was managing at the time.

Over a year ago, this report in Learning Disability Today went some way to highlight the issue, but it doesn't delve deep enough. 

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that DNRs were being issued by GPs without the permission or giving notice to care providers or family members of residents. An illegal practice under article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Let's be clear, during the pandemic it was a pretty dodgy time to get ill and be referred to hospital. The first thing that ambulance crews asked before scooping the patient up was "do they have a purple form" (DNR). 

That then set in motion the limitations of the medical response by the NHS. If you weren't lucky, the presence of the DNR allowed ambulance crews to refuse to take residents to hospital. Instead leaving them in the residence to effectively die, no matter how bad they got. 

If the resident was "lucky", then they would be admitted to hospital, but the presence of the DNR affected the level of care provided. Anecdotal evidence suggests that LD and elderly care home residents were only given minimal care while in hospital. 

Of course there's a chance that the resident survived despite the best efforts of the NHS to deny them care. 

In that case, you'd think that any hospital patient would get a Covid test before being released back to the care of the care home? Nope. The attitude of the NHS at the time appeared to be that they didn't care what happened after the resident had been released from Hospital. "Not their problem" I guess.

So residents, still infectious with Covid were released back to the care of the homes they came from. 

The savvy homes put in place infection control and isolation measures for any and all residents returning back from hospital, whether they presented with Covid or not. Those that weren't so savvy paid the price and had to deal with outbreaks in the home that could have been avoided had the proper measures been put in place.

After seeing the debacle unfolding in New York (thanks to brave YouTubers and Alt Media) and other houses  around the country decimated by Covid brought in from Hospitals, I'd discussed this at the beginning of the pandemic with the wife and I'd said the prudent thing to do would be to set up isolation measures for anyone leaving the protection of the home's "bubble".

Staff were LF tested on a daily basis and PCR tested weekly.

That was about as biologically secure as you could make a care home. 

But I digress. 

We were appalled at the real risks that a care home resident falling into the clutches of the NHS was exposed to. Certainly what residents experienced in some if not most hospitals was a grossly poor level of care. Certainly from the management side of the NHS.

Someone within the NHS must have instigated the signing of DNRs by GPs. It can't have been a local thing, because the evidence (again anecdotal) suggests that this was a nationwide phenomenon.

Here more recently in the Telegraph, it's reported more DNR notices were given to care home residents, but there's no appreciation this was done without consultation with care providers or patient's families. 

The last paragraph in this section should be a scandal:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“However, what is clear from our results is that for a significant proportion of clinicians, resource limitation continued to factor into clinical decision making even when pressures on NHS resources had returned to near-normal levels.”

The Telegraph previously reported that children with learning disabilities were offered “do not resuscitate” orders during the pandemic, amid concerns about the pressure on the NHS.

Investigations by this newspaper also uncovered reports of adult patients with mental illness and learning disabilities who were given DNACPRs at this time.

A survey by the Care Quality Commission, published in March 2021, found more than 500 care home residents were made subject to DNR orders without their consent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph, although a scandal in itself, doesn't tell the whole story. Elderly residents of care homes were regularly denied proper levels of care. People's Parents and Grandparents were shuffled off to side wards and denied basic care to die.

THAT is your NHS. That's what the nation clapped for. Feel good about that now?

It's a fucking disgrace and heads should roll. A full, independent investigation should be launched into how the most basic of care was deliberately denied certain patients. This was no accident, no result of negligence. This was a deliberate action by the NHS.

Someone told those GPS to write those DNRs. They didn't do it off their own bat.

Hospital staff accepted the discrimination of care home residents and didn't red flag what was going on.

This has got to be investigated, the people responsible removed from the NHS and it should not happen again.

Finally, the question that has not been addressed is:

Are those DNR notices still in place now? Are care home residents still at significant risk of reduced care levels when admitted to hospital?

UPDATE:

It very much appears as if the DNR orders are still in place. The wife has only recently heard of a resident that went into hospital and instead of receiving a pre-pandemic standard of care, they were actually put on the Liverpool pathway. 

Anyone in care knows and probably despises the Liverpool pathway, especially if they actually do care about their charges. 

The Liverpool pathway is a set of protocols for palliative or end of life care. It effectively withdraws nutrition and care in a way that speeds up the dying process. 

Except the Liverpool Pathway is being instigated on people that have a fair chance of recovery, if only they were actually given a decent standard of care. It's effectively euthanasia by the back door. It's effectively saying that there's a portion of the population that don't deserve care. 

We're back to the 70's and 80's when it comes to care for the elderly and disabled. Before disability rights supposedly protected people from inhuman and discriminatory treatment. 

This is an NHS that is now prepared to refuse care to a proportion of the population. 

It's a scandal that is not being reported. How many people have to die needlessly before the media will pick up on it? 

Or are certain thing taboo now with the media? Just like the extent of Muslim grooming gangs, are they going to stay quiet on on the mistreatment and discrimination of the elderly and disabled?

COVID-19: A Good Time to Bring Back Eugenics? The Abuse of DNR forms.

I have mentioned this before (in my "NHS Death Cult blog"), but one of my Wife's learning disability residents was taken into hospital at the height of the Covid pandemic.

The first thing the ambulance service wanted to know was whether she had the relevant  DNR form filled in for her. I was so shocked by this, I've done some digging and it appears that as soon as the pandemic hit, care homes and the NHS were obliged to fill in DNR forms for residents. That's not just locally, that's across the country. 

That's not just across the country, that's for every care home resident whether they had requested a DNR order or not. 

It's reminiscent of the Nazis and their culling of the mentally ill and the sick during world war 2.

It's a scandal that the Mainstream Media are not picking up on. There must be thousands of elderly and learning disability people that were denied any form of life-giving treatment and were effectively left to die. 

I heard tales of residents that went into hospital and were denied the normal form of treatment and certainly weren't given any life-extending treatment that would keep them alive. Instead it was only palliative end-of-life type care given to them. In some cases the NHS refused to pick them up and take them to hospital. Instead they were left to die in their care home without treatment that could have saved their life.

This is your NHS, the people you clapped for at the very time they were culling the elderly, the sick and the mentally ill. 

This is very, very wrong and it's a monumental scandal. I have no idea why the mainstream media keep pushing the NHS is some conglomeration of saints. They weren't. The NHS management failed their staff by not supplying PPE in a timely manner. The same management then effectively demanded the withdrawal of treatment to hundreds of thousands of UK citizens. 

It's only by the good management of care home staff that stopped people getting the virus.

Why are we not hearing about this outside the NHS and the Care Community? Why are NHS management and the government not being taken to task about this?

Stop Being a Burden to Yourself and Society at Large. I Thought We'd Buried That Mindset Back in the Forties

I've blogged elsewhere about Canada's new push to kill off people that are a burden to society. Their new act regarding Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) aims to widen the types of conditions that can legally be covered by MAID.

Now Canada aims to add mental illness and physical disability, which I assume includes depression to the ACT. 

Already we've had tales of patients going to Canadian doctors with relatively minor issues and then incredulously being asked if they wanted to end it all.

Paralympian Christine Gauthier has testified that she was given the option of assisted suicide when she asked for a stairlift.

Elsewhere, in the Netherlands a girl was allowed assisted suicide because she had severe depression.

This is what happens when assisted suicide is allowed. Yes, the heart-strings are tugged when it's initially debated: the most terminally ill and desperate individuals are put up front to argue the point that if they are in constant great pain, or have no quality of life, they should be allowed to die under their terms. 

To an extent, I agree with their plight. BUT (and it's a big but), once assisted suicide is established in law, it NEVER stops at the worst cases. There is ALWAYS mission creep. So, it evolves over time: if they are in pain, or have no quality of life, why can't I be allowed to die with my debilitating depression or mental illness?

Once the gates are open to essentially anyone to just top themselves with the help of state-supplied poisons, it then evolves into "wouldn't you like to stop being a burden to your relatives? To then wouldn't you like to stop being a burden to the state? To then eventually "Look I'm sorry, but the state has requested your "suicide", you have no choice in the matter as you have been deemed a net drain on state resources".

And that's the Rabbit hole Canada is half way down at the moment. Other countries that have legislated assisted suicide are at the top of the rabbit hole and have found the slope quite slippery.

In the UK, we don't have assisted suicide laws, but I've already blogged about the borderline illegal issuance of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) forms during the pandemic for those deemed unworthy of treatment.

A UK Paralympian, Helen Raynesford was asked to sign a DNR form at a medical appointment. And she's just in a wheelchair with no life-limiting condition.

Normally the medical profession do it with more subtlety and don't outwardly ask you to sign the DNR, your GP just gets a memo to do it for people that fit certain criteria behind their backs. 

Or we just don't provide basic healthcare, like Ambulances to pick up people with life-limiting conditions for 16 hours, so they die before they have a chance of getting to hospital for treatment.

Now it's tinfoil hat time. This push to kill off the old, the infirm the mentally ill and the physically disabled is not a national or local phenomenon. It is global. Countries around the world have skirted round the issue, poking and prodding at it until the time is right to implement assisted suicide laws. And there is a push from outside politics to install such laws. Luckily, the majority of civilised countries have rejected the move to assisted suicide being on the books. 

And yes, I class any country that allows people to top themselves for no reason at all as uncivilised. Any civilised country would provide an environment for such people that would enhance and enrich their life and provide support. It certainly wouldn't just say "well, why don't you top yourself then?".

So why exactly is this a worldwide push? Well, it's that old Malthusian tune again. The one that started off with Mathus, then erupted violently it the thirties with eugenics (the pinnacle of which was the Nazis) and now we have the "environmental" lobby. It's all about population control.

Or to put it more succinctly, reduction of parts of the population you don't belong to. For instance, extinction rebellion are not just advocating we stop using oil. Because if we did do that, then overnight people would die because of those policies. Of course, the extinction rebellion people have no qualms about killing a few people off because they aren't in the group that would be culled. They are predominantly middle-class youngsters, the Tamaras and the Tarquins. 

They think they wouldn't be in the culling list, so they cheer on the policies that would result in the demise of the poor. Just like the Germans did in the Thirties and the Forties when they cheered on the persecution of the Jews and didn't lift a finger as they were led off to the gas chambers. 

Extinction rebellion are the same sort of thinkers: they believe themselves above others. They certainly think themselves above the law and continue to do criminal damage and cause obstruction and seem surprised and indignant when the law does actually deal with them. Those poor people, those consumers of energy, those untermensch, are they really worth saving? 

When World War Two was over and the excesses of the Nazi's eugenical polices was laid bare for all to see, we had Nuremburg. The trials quite rightly dealt with the worst perpetrators in the only way the world was prepared to countenance. They were hanged for their crimes against humanity. 

We also had medical policies that came out of the same period, with the same name. The Nuremburg code of 1947. It's increasingly clear that certain Pharmaceutical companies did not follow the code recently. 

The essence of the Nuremburg code is informed consent and rejection of unethical practices. But how are people supposed to exercise informed consent if the Pharma companies lie about their drugs? Just how dangerous is it to take an experimental drug created in emergency conditions? 

Certainly with the so-called "Vaccines" of the past couple of years, there has been very little information upon which to inform consent. 

Are the Vaccine makers in violation of the Nuremburg code? I tend to think so. Governments and companies that mandated the "vaccine" only followed the information provided by the Pharma companies. That the "vaccine" was safe, that it prevented spread of the virus and that it did less harm to those that took it than getting the actual virus itself.

We now know that was a lie. The "vaccine" had not been properly tested, that it didn't prevent transmission and spread, and that actually it wasn't as safe as it was purported to be. We are only now, two years later, finding out what the risks are and who is most at risk. We can now also do a personal risk assessment and decide for ourselves if the risk is worth it. 

However, Nuremburg also has something to say about coercion which is just another word for mandating. Could the Governments of the world argue they were only following advice from the Pharma companies? 

Surely Governments should have had the full information about the efficacy and risks associated with the "vaccine" available to them? Are we saying the Pharma companies lied to Governments? I mean, it's not like they would lie to Governments in order to be first to market and therefore maximise profits, would it?

With all the above, I do have to ask the questions:  

When exactly did it become a thing to help people to die that are only minimally affected by their medical condition? 

When did it become a thing for doctors to arbitrarily decide that some people deserved to be resuscitated and others not? 

When did become a thing to want to kill people off to help the planet? 

When did it become a thing to experiment on the majority of the population?

When did it become a thing to legally kill your fellow man (or woman, or child)?

When did life become so cheap?

UPDATE:

The More I think about this, the more I'm convinced that those in power across the World are in the thrall of various death cults. 

Extinction Rebellion I've already mentioned, with their push to freeze the poor to death.

I've previously mentioned the Muslim faith and their ideas around martyrdom.

But the Davos set seem dead set in seeing large numbers of ordinary citizens dead.

The WEF want us to stop eating healthy fresh food and eat processed bugs instead. That'll see off another few percent of the population that can't afford to eat.

The WHO are no longer concerned with World health and instead push dangerous, deadly ideologies. 

It's no wonder that all these various factions have some affinity with each other despite not having any obvious connection. The common denominator is the idea that life is cheap.

A Shadow is Cast Over The United Kingdom.

I've taken a few days to come to terms with the house of commons voting to make assisted dying legal in the UK. 

I've blogged a number of times about my thoughts on the subject. Things like mission creep making it initially for the terminally ill and people in extreme physical pain eventually morphing into no more than a suicide booth for the mildly depressed, as witnessed in other countries that have adopted it.

Even the arguments during the debates are vague. "Dying with  Dignity" was a slogan. What is that? Define that. I can understand the wish to end a life of extreme pain. Such a life would be tantamount to permanent torture. But mental torment? I'm not sure that gets my support.

The worst is "Not being a burden". To whom? Family? Carers? The State?

I can't countenance the granting of the ability of the state to take a life for medical reasons, especially if the state goes out of it's way to avoid taking a life for other reasons like murder. 

I believe taking the life of an innocent person is immoral. Yes, you can square it in some way by saying it's a mercy killing. And maybe it is a mercy for those in desperate need. But I'm sure that in the not too distant future the people being killed will not be terminal, not be in extreme pain. 

This is especially after ALL the restrictions tabled as amendments to the bill, to stop mission creep to less severe cases were thrown out. That tells you a lot about the government's motivation for bringing in the legislation.

Of course after the limitations put on the medical profession regarding the Liverpool pathway, the abhorrent way that assisted dying was done in the past (removing food and fluid so people starve to death) it was inevitable that the medical profession and the various government-funded fake charities jumped on the assisted dying bandwagon.

Then we had illegal DNR notices applied during COVID, the withdrawal of treatment for aged patients by the NHS, the list goes on. Now they have the all-clear to kill people, all it requires is a signature or consent of the family. Like that restriction stopped the illegal DNR notices.

Never before has the trajectory of the National Health Service been so radically changed. In the background, to avoid extra expenditure, patients have been "allowed" to die by removing life-saving or life-prolonging treatment. 

This new legislation will make it legal for the NHS to now be more "active" in the death of the patient. 

It's no more moral than the various nurses and doctors that have been convicted  for helping their patients into the afterlife in the past.

The Discredited "Liverpool Care Pathway" is Still Killing People.

I've already blogged about how many people were given secret DNR notices on their medical record during the pandemic, something else that I knew was still being used has hit the news.

In this report an 88-year old lady was put on an "end of life pathway" after suffering a stroke, despite being otherwise healthy. So healthy, it took over 25 days for her carers to terminate her life by starving her to death.

For the unaware, the "Liverpool Care Pathway" (LCP) was introduced as a way to end the suffering of a patient that was already close to the end of their life. For many reasons, continuing to feed a person in the late stages of cancer for instance, could only prolong their suffering. The LCP was introduced as a "humane" way of allowing those people to slip away. They would already be on large doses of painkillers, so withdrawing food and fluid would not add much if anything to their suffering.

But it was found the LCP was being applied to ill but otherwise healthy patients who were inconveniently staying alive, or possibly labour-intensive, as a way to shorten the burden to the organisation. It was found that patients that would have recovered from their illness were being put on the pathway and it was the pathway, not the illness that then ended their life.

In these cases, the LCP was rightly deemed inhumane. Not only for the person being effectively starved to death, but also for the families, having to watch their loved one go through up to and sometimes over a month without food or fluid.

It was supposedly removed as a "treatment" back in 2014. However, in the NHS and the Social Care Sector, the LCP appears to be alive and well, it's just not called the Liverpool Care Pathway. Patients are still being prematurely denied food and fluid for a number of reasons, in an effort to end their life early.

I will leave it up to the reader as to why that may be, but I have my suspicions. But the one reason that it isn't, is to humanely end the life of an otherwise end-of--life terminal patient. 

It was recognised as a scandal back in 2014 and it's still a scandal. The Liverpool Care Pathway must be banned. It's unlawful to starve an otherwise healthy person to death and the medical setting should not offer protection from prosecution. 

It's only because of the protection afforded by the medical or care setting and the unwillingness of the Police to investigate that prevents a manslaughter by gross negligence charge being brought.

Assisted Dying Debate: The Disabled are Right to Fear any Change in the Law.

In this report, Liz Carr, the wheelchair-bound actress from the Silent Witness series is investigating the MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) rules in Canada. Basically she's concerned (rightly in my opinion) about the UK creating new legislation or NHS facilities to assist people with dying.

Of course the consultants she sees will be very careful with their words and speak in rosy tones like their family will be with them when they die, etc. They'll also say that they won't assist anyone to die unless their life is unbearable. 

But, that's not the entire truth of the matter. Is mental illness unbearable suffering? Is depression?  Is any treatable condition an excuse to assist someone to die? Will the test be subjective or objective? 

Because that's what's happened in Canada. I've even seen reports of disabled Paralympic athletes being actively offered MAID in stead of facilities to support their disability. 

In Canada a patient with depression was offered MAID.

In the Netherlands a girl was allowed to be killed just because she had depression.

The links above show I'm not making this up. These are actual cases.

The problem as always with these things is mission creep. Initially yes, the extremely disabled and those suffering horrific levels of pain, etc will be used as an emotional lever to get the legislation passed. But then once the legislation is implemented, it very soon becomes available for all. Because why not? It's inhumane to withhold MAID from those who merely just want to end it all isn't it?

As I've said before, there's not much of a leap from allowing people a humane way to die, to then being dying so you aren't a burden on the family, or dying because I've go no family to support me, to then would you like MAID instead of treatment? 

A woman in Canada has experienced this. It's taking longer to get support for her disability than it would to accept MAID

At it's most extreme, you could say if you are on benefits and have no life, would MAID be an option? How big a step would be be to then bringing in MAID if you are a financial burden to the state? "Stop being a burden to the state, end it all" could well be a slogan for the future. But then how long before it becomes mandatory? You get benefits for 6 months and then it's off to the death clinic with you because obviously you are unemployable and unproductive.... Just think of the savings for the government when they don't have to support the long-term sick, the mentally ill, those with learning disability, the elderly, the infirm and those that are plain anti-social like those in prison. Think of the millions we could save if mandatory MAID for offenders came in... The death penalty for serious offences then becomes a real option again, because there's also a side to the debate that says "well, if you allow people to die because their life isn't worth it, why oppose capital punishment?"

It's a very slippery slope that the UK should have absolutely no part of. I do have sympathy with those that are suffering, but for the sake of those that may fall victim to the inevitable modification of legislation and attitudes to assisted death, I vehemently oppose it. The examples above should make you think twice before supporting MAID.

Don't say it won't happen. We've already seen the abuse of DNR notices during the pandemic. We've seen how it's been brushed under the carpet largely unreported by the media. Certainly there hasn't been the scandal there should be around it. Don't think assisted dying would be any different. It will be abused, it will be changed, eventually. These things always are.

MAID: How the Corporate Lobby Sell it:

Government: "We have this every-growing bunch of people that rely on the state for welfare. It's crippling the economy and despite all the efforts, we just can't make it worth their while to enter work. Minimum wage is too high for employers, but not high enough to make it worth their while working instead of taking benefits. What can we do?"

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you could just kill them". 

Government: "We can't do that! There would be riots, a revolt!

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you start off slow. First you introduce MAID for the most sick, terminally ill and in pain people. No-one would ever speak out against that. You can say it's inhumane to keep them alive. We treat animals better, yadda yadda..."

Government: "Okay, but what about the people on welfare?"

Corporate Lobby: "I'm getting to that. You start off with the very sick, but then you set up the atmosphere that well, if the very ill want to die, isn't it discrimination if we don't offer it to anyone that wants to die. After all you're all about inclusivity and equality aren't you?"

Government: "Well, yes..."

Corporate Lobby "Well then, there you go: start off humane, then let people join in voluntarily."

Government: "But the Welfare people might not volunteer..."

Corporate Lobby: "Well, these are the sort of people we don't want. The workshy, the thick, the mentally ill, the people that cost us to employ with their demands for ramps and wheelchair access, making US pay for their disability.. the nerve!

Government: "Yes, but we just can't kill them..."

Corporate Lobby: "Look, you start to twist things. You say to the infirm Stop being a burden to your family, go for MAID before you cost them money. You might even throw in the incentive of a reduction in inheritance tax if Granny volunteers to pop her clogs. Presto! Reduction in homes for the elderly and instant freeing up of housing stock. Then once people get used to not being a burden for family, you ay why be a burden for the state? Why keep taking money from those over-generous taxpayers? Why sit at home taking their money off them? After all it's not much of a life on the pittance you receive, so why not just end it all?"

Government: "Do you think we can do it? 

Corporate Lobby: "Of course. While you pressure the people on welfare to end it all, you also tell the people in work they are paying over the odds to keep these people on the dole. If these people weren't on welfare, taxes would be lower.... "

Government: "That sounds plausible.."

Corporate Lobby: " and very workable. We'll even get our PR people to work with you on that side of things.

Government: "Thank you. For Free?"

Corporate Lobby: "Initially. But we may ask for favours later."

Government: "Such as?"

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you know how people will think they're getting lower taxes because of euthanasia? Well, we'll get the tax breaks instead. That's all we ask.

Government: "The public won't like that..."

Corporate Lobby: "Fuck 'em. If they kick up a fuss you just make MAID mandatory. Give them benefits for 6 months, but if they don't get a job in that time, it's off to the death clinic for them. If they really kick up a fuss and break the law, the same applies. Just get rid of the deplorables in society. What we want is a race of fit, healthy, productive and passive people. Eventually all the hangers-on and trouble-makers will be euthanised. What's left will be Utopia. Everyone will have a job, everyone will be fit, everyone will be beautiful and mentally stable. 

Government: "That sounds awfully like a certain ideology of the 1930s...."

Corporate Lobby: "No, No, No, No, No.... Nothing like the N-people. This will be a caring ideology. We'll help people who are ill, sick, in pain, mentally unstable and unproductive end their miserable lives..."

Government: "But you made it miserable because you won't pay enough taxes to fund proper healthcare and support for people..."

Corporate Lobby: "I've had a word with your senior minister. It's been decided you need to drop out of public life for health reasons... I know this lovely little clinic that can put and end to your mental health issues..." 

Boris Kangaroo Court Misses the Point.

 I'm sorry for those that didn't get to say goodbye to relatives in hospital during the pandemic. I sympathise with people that could not attend funerals as well.

But to compare those emotive scenarios with the Boris Partygate scandal is factually incorrect.

During the Pandemic, essential workers were allowed to continue working. In our office of three people we kept working all the way through. We were allowed, by law to continue working. In fact we also had close contact with the other 5 workers in the warehouse. So that's eight of us in close contact all the way through. Acceptable by law.

Had someone in the office left during the pandemic and we cared enough to turn up with wine and nibbles on the day, then that was also allowed. We were not inviting anyone outside our working environment into our office space.

And so it is with Boris. As much as you want to compare apples with eggs, the fact is that Boris was at work, with co-workers. They were I hope classified as essential workers, so were entitled to be working together. Those were the rules on the day and the addition of wine and nibbles does not alter that fact.

Boris is not making up rules for himself, those were the rules on the day: essential workers were allowed to work together all the way through the pandemic. They could be on the premises working just as much as being on the premises to chug wine and eat cheesy crackers.

Now, we get on to Kier Starmer: I believe he was having a beer in a constituency office during the pandemic. An office that was not his normal place of work. He successfully argued that he was allowed to work in that office and have a beer during a break for food. 

If that's the case, then Boris is more than entitled to enjoy a glass of wine in work with his co-workers.

It's not piss-taking, it's not taking the Mick, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't immoral either. It was legal, moral and correct, but of course the left's morality police will be wheeling out tales of missed funerals, relatives dying unattended in hospital. All irrelevant. 

If the left want a hill to plant their flag on, what about the thousands of DNR notices placed on vulnerable people in the hands of the care sector? You know, the attempts by the NHS to avoid treating people they deemed not worthy because they were old, infirm, disabled or had learning difficulties.

Any word on that from the left? No? 

A New Covid-Related Scandal: Midazolam and the Refusal to Provide Treatment of Old People

 It seems there's a new Covid-Related scandal in progress as we speak.

This is the refusal by the NHS to treat older Covid patients, or patients that present with Covid-like symptoms. 

By refusal to treat, I mean the withdrawal of Oxygen, the refusal to treat symptoms and the basic lack of care. It's the same sort of caring that was exhibited by the Liverpool pathway. Anyone that knows anything about the Liverpool pathway and it's barbaric withdrawal of basic needs like food and water to assist dying should be just as shocked by this new scandal.

I've heard through a few friends of a chap that was admitted to the local hospital because he was coughing up blood. 

They did various tests for TB etc, but couldn't pin down the cause of the issue. That's what they said. Within three days, the man had deteriorated so much that they told the family they should come in to pay their last respects. 

By then every time they removed oxygen from the patient, his sats crashed. Supposedly, there was nothing they could do.

So the doctor's plan was to say to the family to spend the day getting their affairs in order, say their goodbyes and then the next day they would withdraw the oxygen. 

In order to "help" him during this time, they would administer Midazolam so that as he died, he would not struggle to breathe. Midazolam is a muscle relaxant. So instead of struggling to breathe as someone with oxygen deprivation would, they would relax his muscles so he wouldn't struggle and would eventually die in a peaceful manner.

The family are now reporting they all have Covid. 

So the questions start:

If it was Covid and the patient was coping on oxygen, why remove oxygen from him? Why not keep administering the oxygen until his body gained resistance against the virus and he could breathe again?

Why refuse to treat the patient if Covid was the cause?

Why wasn't the patient tested for Covid?

Why is this not an isolated case? I have heard of this so-called treatment from a few sources now. It seems the NHS is not treating patients and making all effort to make them better now, but instead assisting them in dying. 

This has got to be yet another criminal scandal. 

Why is the NHS doing this? Are there statistical limits at play?

Is the cost of oxygen so high that they can only administer it for a short period? Does it mean that if your condition requires more than 3 days-worth of oxygen, the preferred treatment by the NHS is to kill you off?

I'd heard of this happening online, but now I've had first-hand confirmation that it is happening.

It's a fucking scandal and like the DNR scandal that still hasn't been brought to light by the media or investigated by the authorities, people need to be investigated for criminal activity. 

I've yet to add the final clue as to why this is happening: the chap in question was 82. As I had with my mother and the lack of care and treatment while she was in hospital, it seems there's a policy in place at the NHS with an arbitrary limit on the age at which they will actually treat a patient. Over that limit, the "treatment" is mitigation only and if there's a fear the patient will use those resources over a limit of (say) three days, then it's time for the mitigation to be withdrawn and any treatment to be withdrawn. 

Come to think of it thinking back with my mother the three day thing seemed to crop up too. After three days they were trying their best to push her off to the recovery or rehabilitation department, which ended up in her being re-admitted to A&E and back into the hospital, because the rehabilitation unit said she was still too ill to be there. In effect she hadn't recovered.

This is at the very least, gross negligence manslaughter, although I'd go further and argue there is no neglect here, this is a very deliberate policy.

GNM is defined thussly:

Gross Negligence Manslaughter is when the most likely cause of death is due to grossly negligent action or inaction. An example of gross negligence manslaughter is if a doctor administers a drug knowing the patient is allergic to it and that patient dies as a result if the reaction to the drug.

Manslaughter implies there is no intention to kill. It's my contention that's exactly the intention in this case. The doctors know exactly what the withdrawal of oxygen would do. The evidence of that is the administering of Midazolam to reduce the effects caused by the withdrawal and the "easing" of their transition to death. The only negligent aspect of this case is the failure to test for Covid, although from what I am hearing from around the country, that wouldn't have any effect on the actual outcome. 

Some would call it murder.

During the writing of this, the penny has dropped. There is a record of when a patient is admitted to a ward. The clock starts ticking and I wonder there is a 4-day time window to treat the patient and get them of the ward. I think this is for general admissions and not for specialist units like strokes, heart attacks, etc. where the treatment and recovery takes longer than 4 days. I know there's a 4-hour limit for A&E admissions, but I'd wager there is also a limit for patients on wards too.

So is the NHS answer to time limits on wards to kill off patients? 

The evidence kinda says yes. If the NHS can reasonably argue that the patients death was inevitable or there is also an age limit beyond which some other reporting metric is not invoked because they expect an older patient to die. 

So for instance they can reasonably get away with a lot of post-80-year-old patients dying without repercussions.

I'd love to delve deeper into NHS reporting metrics and prove my theory true. I'd also love to disprove it, as then that's killing someone that could be treated for no reason. At least with a reporting metric bearing down on a ward administrator, it's easy to see under what circumstances killing a patient rather than taking the time to treat them becomes an acceptable practice.

Budget Response: The Poor Are Fucked.

 So, lets see how Rishi Sunak "helped" the less well off in the spring statement.

By costing them more money. In my book that ain't helping.

So we'll be paying more in National Insurance for a Health service that has got dramatically poorer in the past few years. Now that most GP services are privatised, the service has gone down the pan. It's almost like they don't want to see you any more. Rishi says that raising the threshold before paying N.I. and Income Tax is actually a tax cut. Actually it isn't. At best it's neutral, at worst it's a tax hike for those on low incomes.

More N.I. to pay for a failing health service I've just had my first call in for my "annual" blood test for three years. Fuck my health then, I'll just put up with any health issues caused by the cocktail of drugs I'm taking while my GP gets paid to pretend to be a doctor. I guess I should be lucky that I'm around to have blood to test, given that certain people were given DNR notices without their consent during the pandemic.

Ah, you say, but maybe Rishi will save us the cost of fuel and energy. Maybe he will drastically reduce fuel duty and remove VAT from energy?

Er, no.

5p off fuel duty. When the price of fuel is going up by more than that a week. So basically Rishi has taken the cost of fuel back to last Friday. Or to put it another way, his tax cut will be wiped out by Monday. The past two weeks it has gone up 8p a litre each week. To me, that cut in fuel duty grants me a saving of £3 a week. when my fuel bill has gone up by over £20 per week. 

I'm now looking to downsize my car. Or I would if the small car market hadn't exploded in the past month as everyone else tries to sip petrol or get a ULEZ-compliant car. No electric car for me, I don't have a drive to charge it on, I don't even park the car outside the house, it's parked across the road. So I can't avail myself of the benefits that having an electric car would grant me. Even If I had all of the above, I rent my house so would need permission from the landlord to fit a charging point, which entails gutting most of the house running high current cables from the fuse box to the front of the house.

A lot has been said of those on fixed incomes: the people that get benefits, or pensioners. But in reality most low-paid workers are on fixed incomes. Wages rise at most by 3% a year. My last pay rise was 1%. Not even close to the current rate of inflation. But this is the norm now. Wages rise by fuck all, until employers hit the limit of minimum wage where they are forced by law to increase the wages year on year. 

This is where a truly progressive government could transform the fortunes of the poor: take those on minimum wage out of tax and National Insurance contributions. The minimum wage from 1st of April this year equates to an annual salary of nearly £20,000 before tax. It'll be interesting to check my P60 this year, because I'm not far off that figure. 

I shall be watching this year's budget with interest if I don't get an above average pay rise this year.