UK Woman Not Dehydrated, Starved
A coroner's inquest has determined that the elderly woman in the UK, whom some family members claimed was denied sustenance, died of natural causes. She was not provided a feeding tube, based on what seems to be very vague indications by the patient. Hence, it seems that the care of the patient involved confusion more than intent. But the story still demonstrates the kind of confusion that can rend families and care givers when these matters are not discussed fully beforehand.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:24 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Truth to tell, I can't quite tell what the evidence is that she didn't starve. The sheer lowness of the calorie intake (from the previous news story) would seem to support that conclusion. I can't help wondering to what extent this was a positive judgment on the intent of the doctors (which may, indeed, have been benign) rather than on the strictly medical and physical facts as to the immediate cause of death.
As you imply, Wesley, the argument that she didn't respond, told him to go away, and/or seemed confused is incredibly weak as an argument against inserting a stomach tube or NG tube.
I agree with Lydia. Nothing is clear in this case. I don't trust inquests in cases where the medical providers have the ability to circle the wagons and overwhelm court and government functionaries.
The information about her edema is actually troubling. If she had low albumin levels from lack of protein and malnutrition--this can actually CAUSE edema and fluid accumulation. Here is a source regarding that. It also may explain why her veins collapsed.
It is actually very possible that her fluid problem was related to malnutrition!
I think the judge at the inquest was bamboozled.
My impression is that a coroner who does a coroner's inquest in the UK is more a legal than a medical functionary. I don't know everything about this; I think the coroner does have to be a doctor. But my point is just that saying, "The coroner determined she didn't die of starvation" may not have the same force in the UK as in the U.S., because it may not refer, and especially may not refer primarily, to the results of an autopsy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home