by Jacqui Deevoy
The support group for relatives of victims of involuntary euthanasia (R.O.V.E), which I set up in 2021, now has almost 100 members. It gets busy in there, daily discussions being had, support and advice being shared and new friendships being made.
I decided to have a few days off this week but, suffering from severe FOMO, I can’t help but pop in a couple of times a day, just to make sure I’m not missing anything.
When I had a quick look this morning, I found this from KD, one of the members, remaining anonymous for this article so as not to jeopardise the legal proceedings in which they’re involved. The lengthy comment on excess deaths (the topic of the week as Andrew Bridgen MP prepares for his HOC debate next Friday (October 20th), raises some serious points as many fear the debate will focus solely on the toxic C19 jabs, thus sweeping all the euthanasia deaths out of view. KD addresses that here:
“There is an important point that is being missed in the question of ongoing excess deaths since 2020. The rolling out of ‘palliative care’ into the mainstream NHS, care homes, and other community settings MUST be included in any analysis of excess deaths.
Previously, the NICE guideline NG31 – ‘Care of Dying Adults in the Last Days of Life’ – was intended for use in the last 2-3 days of life and the evidence base was mainly from hospice care of those with life limiting diseases such as cancer and heart disease. However, in April 2020, these guidelines were adapted into a new guideline NG163 – Covid-19 Rapid Guideline Managing Symptoms (including at end of life) in the Community.’
Not only were these guidelines adapted for use in a community setting, without proper safeguards and antidotes, but they also authorised much higher doses of dangerous drug combinations for the treatment of Covid-19, and for end of life prescribing.
If this new guideline – which was identical to the now-abolished Liverpool Care Pathway – was for community settings only, where was the guideline for Covid-19 treatment in NHS hospitals? Who decided that those who scored high in the accompanying ‘frailty score’ would also go straight onto an “end of life” pathway?
It would appear that the NICE guidelines of NG31 were followed, except for the requirement to involve family members and gain ‘informed consent’ from the person themselves. The other difference is that NG31 does not recommend the use of Midazolam and morphine immediately and at such high doses (NG163 recommended a starting dose of 2.5mgs of Midazolam and 2.5mgs of morphine) and only suggests prescribing such drugs if there’s absolutely no doubt that the patient is about to die.
The signing of a DNAR does not simply mean ‘do not resuscitate’, it also means that ‘anticipatory’, ‘end of life’ drugs are prescribed and sometimes used immediately, even if the person is not in the last days or hours of life and potentially has weeks or months to live. As it has previously been ascertained, blanket DNAR’s were used in some settings, often without the person’s knowledge or consent.
NG163 also failed to establish the need to review the patient regularly to see if they stabilised, and were able to come off the drugs. This is one of the criticisms and potential dangers levelled by senior palliative care professionals as laid out in this letter in the BNP in April 2020. https://www.bmj.com/
The danger of misuse of the frailty score for disabled people with stable conditions was also highlighted by the Nursing Times. https://www.
The government are committed to extending the availability of palliative care to all who need it. But were those put on end of life pathways during the alleged pandemic actually in need of palliative care? It would seem that many – including the relatives of R.O.V.E group members – were not.
The UK is not alone as the LCP was exported to most Western countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) wants to extend the availability of palliative care to every person in every country in the world.
At first glance, putting very ill people on palliative care pathways appears to be a laudable aim: some aspects of end of life care are undoubtedly good as they provide support for obtaining benefits, help with finances, plus social support, counselling etc., but there remains a murky side to it.
After the outcry about the LCP in 2014, the world of end of life drugs and palliative care is now coming, once more, to the fore. The Individualised Care Plans that were meant to replace it have, for the most part, not materialised, with the same sets of ‘end of life’ drugs routinely prescribed, without acknowledging the person’s own wants and desires, including the possibility of a natural ‘non-medicalised’ death.
What has been hidden, and is again coming to light, is that ‘end of life’ drugs have been routinely used over the last 20+ years to sedate and kill people, either through overdose, or through the inability to continue to eat and drink, due to sedation or weakness caused by the drugs.
The drugs used have a multitude of side effects. These are just a few of them:
Opioids – arrhythmias; coma; constipation nausea; vomiting; itching; confusion; likelihood of falls; respiratory depression
Midazolam – conscious sedation; paralysis long and short term memory loss; coma; vomiting; respiratory depression
Levomepromazine – agitation; movement disorders; hypotension; seizure; vomiting
Haloperidol – neurological and cardiac effects; insomnia; movement disorders; muscle rigidity; neutropenia; parkinsonism; seizure; urinary retention; vomiting
Cyclizine – chills; consciousness impaired; injection site necrosis; pain; paralysis; thrombophlebitis; urinary retention
Glycopyrronium – arrhythmias; constipation; dizziness; headache; nausea
Hyoscine hydrobromide – ataxia, hallucinations, behavioural abnormalities, constipation; headache; tachycardia; psychotic disorder; vision disorders; vomiting
Phenobarbital – Agitation; anaemia; bone disorders; cognitive impairment; movement disorders; respiratory depression
The use of these drugs singly can be problematic, especially at high doses but, when used together, even at low doses, the combined effect will eventually cause death in anyone who takes them. (See BNF, NHS, Pfizer websites for risk of potentially fatal respiratory depression.)
The description by whistleblower undertakers and funeral directors – John O’Looney, to name but one – of skeletal bodies during the first wave of Covid-19, fits with the starvation and dehydration that can occur, in those slowly killed by these drugs. Others were overdosed quickly, particularly in hospital settings. Due to DNAR’s, lack of post mortems, presence of Covid-19 or other comorbidities, their deaths were generally not investigated. and Covid-19 or the comorbidities were written on the death certificates.
On rare instances, the drugs have been noted to have contributed towards deaths. The Daily Mail recently reported on a coroner’s findings where drugs had actually caused the demise of two patients. These deaths occurred in 2018 but the inquests were adjourned until the end of the trial of the two nursing staff found guilty of drugging patients. Another seven deaths on the same ward are being investigated.
How many deaths could have been avoided if the drug-related deaths had been exposed by the media sooner, or if the coroner had written a “prevention of future deaths” report?
In the support group I am in, many people report that they or the patients’ wishes were ignored when they said they didn’t want a DNAR, a syringe driver, or specific drugs. Family members who argued or protested were threatened with being barred from visiting (if they were allowed in at all during lockdowns), or with ‘safeguardings’ being made against them, or with gagging orders. Even those with Lasting Power of Attorney were unable to reverse the drug pathway once it had started. The very agencies and policies that were meant to protect people were ineffective and were even used against concerned family members.
People attending hospital for minor issues – constipation, routine hernia operations, for example – often ended up on ‘end of life’ pathways.
One woman’s husband, a man of 54, tried to escape from hospital four times. They cut his clothes off, so he was naked, and catheterised him so he would find it harder to get away. It is highly unlikely he was in his last days or hours of life if he could do that, and definitely defies logic that he would have consented to the treatments.
Another woman’s mother kept removing her syringe driver, so they put it in her foot so she was unable to reach it.
There are many accounts of people who were euthanised who had been well, sitting up chatting, only minutes or hours before their hastened deaths.
One woman asked for an inquest and post- mortem for her husband but was told it wasn’t possible because his organs had been removed.
Most people are lucky enough not to know, or have experience of this issue… yet. But, once you have, then you recognise the grave danger that everybody is in if they enter hospital and score high on the frailty score. The end of life pathway is a one-way street, even though NICE guideline NG31 says it shouldn’t be.
The paternalistic state now prescribes when and how you die, and provides the drugs, equipment and people to do it, as per MP Luke Evans’ now infamous statement. And it does so, regardless of whether you want it or not. https://youtu.be/0mdUc4TdswE?
The use of ‘end of life’ drugs brings up important questions about the right to life, bodily autonomy, choice and consent.
The right to life is the ultimate freedom. It has been already been taken from so many and continues to be taken every day.
‘End of life’ drugs play a major part in the ongoing excess deaths problem: it’s a hidden crisis that needs to be made public.”