THE controversial Liverpool Care Pathway was "never about hastening death", the co-creator of the end-of-life regime has insisted.
Palliative care nurse Deborah Murphy, who helped develop the care "pathway" for terminally ill patients in the 1990s, said the real purpose for the LCP was to make dying patients "as comfortable as possible".
She slammed the "media-driven" decision to scrap it.
While she admitted that she was shocked by some of the patients' stories highlighted in a recent review of the regime, she told the Nursing Standard: "It was never about hastening death or postponing death or about withdrawing treatment – these were myths."
The real purpose of the LCP – which recommends that in some circumstances doctors withdraw treatment, food and water from sedated patients in their final hours or days – was about "planning care in advance so dying patients can be made as comfortable as possible," she added. "But a plan like that is only as good as the people using it."
Last week, health officials ordered a complete overhaul of care for terminally ill patients after the independent review found doctors used the LCP "as an excuse for poor-quality care".
They said that the LCP should be scrapped and replaced with personalised end-of-life care plans.
The review panel, chaired by crossbench peer Baroness Julia Neuberger, said they were "shocked" and "upset" at cases of appalling care.
Baroness Neuberger, who wrote the review, said: "Caring for the dying must never again be practised as a tick-box exercise, and each patient must be cared for according to their individual needs and preferences.
"Ultimately it is the way the LCP has been misused and misunderstood that has led to such great problems, along with it being simply too generic in its approach for the needs of some. Sadly, it is just too late to turn the clock back to get it used properly by everybody.
"That is why we have recommended phasing out the LCP and replacing it with a more personalised and clinically sensitive approach."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article