Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am glad that the subject of the Liverpool Care Pathway has finally been appropriately covered in the UK press with this petition in the Daily Telegraph. As doctors, we are in a fairly unique position of authority and are such regulated against providing patients with false information. As with the MMR scandal in 1998, Andrew Wakefield caused a sharp decrease in vaccination rates which has now led to a decrease in patient care. He was suitably reprimanded. Journalists are also in a privileged position to be able to influence the public; yet with articles from poorly informed journalists misleading the public to denying their patient an excellent evidence-based pathway I am certain there will be no such punishment.
As I see it there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Liverpool Care Pathway (LPC). Components of the LPC have been in use in the terminal stages of our patients lives. The LPC has brought together good practice as a means of providing evidence based humane care in the final stages of life.
As not infrequently happens in he health and social care sector, the problem is in its application. Policies and documents are produced as evidence of good care. What is needed is application of the LPC in collaboration with the patient and his/her family and carers. Invoking it without this crucial step is negligent and gives the LPC a bad name.
Our patients need the LPC, even under a different name, to provide the care they deserve in the final stages of life.
Re: Liverpool care pathway: doctors speak out
I am glad that the subject of the Liverpool Care Pathway has finally been appropriately covered in the UK press with this petition in the Daily Telegraph. As doctors, we are in a fairly unique position of authority and are such regulated against providing patients with false information. As with the MMR scandal in 1998, Andrew Wakefield caused a sharp decrease in vaccination rates which has now led to a decrease in patient care. He was suitably reprimanded. Journalists are also in a privileged position to be able to influence the public; yet with articles from poorly informed journalists misleading the public to denying their patient an excellent evidence-based pathway I am certain there will be no such punishment.
Competing interests: No competing interests