Fund end of life care

Lord Blunkett is calling for the government to provide half the funding for hospices before Parliament debates assisted dying legislation again.

Thirteen years ago, as a family, we witnessed the travesty of so-called care in the community at the time. Sixteen emergency admissions to hospital in an eighteen month period provide an illustration of how inadequate this care was. But, this illustration does not tell the story of the unnecessary suffering and anxiety experienced as a result of lack of adequate care.

When my late husband was admitted to our local hospice ten days before his death, the contrast in care was like the difference between night and day. There, despite funding shortages, instead of a systemic approach to problems, care was led by patient needs. Pain relief was the first priority accompanied by comfort, compassion and dignity. How different was this to the wait-diagnose-treat-discharge attitude that drove the NHS, often despite the efforts of individual professionals who would like to have offered something better.

Not only the patient, but also the family felt "heard" and supported. None of us want to die, but we hope that when our time comes, if help is needed, it is available. Following my husband's death a "relfective review" was carried out at the hospital where he had been treated numerous times, the aim being to investigate and acknolwedge what had gone wrong in his case and prevent similar issues arising in the future. While the will for change was present, I fear that thirteen years later, little has changed.

Currently, we live in a society where the manner of death within the health service is frankly, a lottery. None of us can be confident that when it is our turn we will receive the standard of care and compassion that a civilised society should provide.

Hospices provide the gold standard of care and yet they receive inadequte funding from the government, they became subject to the same employer national insurance increase as other employers and rely heavily on fund raising and donations to continue their vital work. If they ceased to exist, the NHS would not cope.

Lord Blunkett is right. Before debating the issue of assisted dying further, a basic standard of end-of life care for all, needs to be in place, which puts relief of suffering, compassion and dignity at its core. There is then a different debate to be had on helping those for whom no relief is possible.