Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the hospital just let him die?

209 replies

sadaboutlife · 29/10/2019 18:28

My uncle was 73.
He was taken into hospital last Thursday with severe stomach pains and vomiting.
They gave him a scan and found out he had a perforated stomach ulcer.
Now they said normal treatment would be a operation but they said they didn't think he would survive the operation so refused to do it.
They gave him antibiotics and fluids and 3 days later told us he was dying.
He died yesterday.
I'm angry.
Why wouldn't they just try the Op?
They knew he would die anyway so why not at least give him a chance to live.
I'm so upset.
This time last week he was watching tele happy and now his gone
I just don't understand

OP posts:
Arnoldthecat · 29/10/2019 18:47

I can fully understand your concerns OP. Ive been there myself with friends and relatives. All the questions go round in your head. Did they do the best they could? Are they saving money? were they short staffed? Would he have survived in the USA/in another facility etc etc. And i think that you need to have a fuller in depth explanation of why those decisions were made . Maybe you felt that you were not fully included at the time? If you dont get that meeting with a full explanation, then you could move toward a complaint to get the answers to want. The NHS is not to be venerated. It is an organisation just like any other . It needs to be accountable. At the very least you will hopefully feel more settled with a full explanation and comforted that yes indeed ,hopefully they did do their best.

Original poster
sadaboutlife · 29/10/2019 18:47

@MrsMaiselsMuff he had blocked arteries in his legs which was due to years of smoking I think.
He had ulcers on his feet too.

OP posts:
PotteringAlong · 29/10/2019 18:47

But even if it had saved his life, you said yourself he would have no quality of life. Would he have wanted that? Would you really want him alive at any cost?

beelzeboob · 29/10/2019 18:48

OP I’m sorry for your loss.

But what you are saying is that they should have operated at any cost, even though the extreme likelihood is that he would have died as a result and if they did operate he wouldn’t be left with any quality of life.

It’s very hard to be objective when it’s a family member but you have to think logically here - they did the best for your uncle. The other outcomes would have been worse.

Once again sorry for your loss

Original poster
sadaboutlife · 29/10/2019 18:49

@GrumpyHoonMain it was my cousin and he just went along with it I guess,but then again I guess you can't argue with the doctor.
I'm pleased your aunt is ok now

OP posts:
ChilledBee · 29/10/2019 18:50

I think doing an operation that someone probably wont survive violates the "do no harm" part of medical ethics. I think it is generally concluded that it is better for everyone involved for someone to slip away surrounded by family and hopefully pain free than to die on the table.

PlasticPatty · 29/10/2019 18:50

I am sorry for your loss.

I believe you.

I have observed similar things myself. I don't think I can say more here. Everyone should look and listen. Something massive is going on in UK hospitals.

ChilledBee · 29/10/2019 18:50

Sorry for your loss

FelicityFeather · 29/10/2019 18:50

@redcupbluecup you are incorrect. An operation not being carried out is not due to funding. Yes of course to a routine knee replacement for example, but not where there is threat to life or limb. All options would have been weighed up - the most important one being whether he'd survive it

Original poster
sadaboutlife · 29/10/2019 18:50

@PotteringAlong I don't understand what they meant by "no quality of life" if they did the op I'm unsure how his quality of life would be poor.
I don't really understand

OP posts:
ChasingRainbows19 · 29/10/2019 18:51

It's not about money. Yeah the NHS Is in bits and some surgery may be being cancelled but not urgent life saving surgery. I've seen much older patients in surgery lists, people in their 90s.

It would of been a decision in his best interests. My mum died at 60 she was never to be put under Anaesthetic In the later years due to her medical conditions, not because they didn't want to spend money on her. This meant no icu treatment too.

I'm sorry for your loss and feel free to contact pals or the doctors for an explanation if it helps you to grieve

ShiveringCoyote · 29/10/2019 18:51

I'm so very sorry for your loss.

The operation had a 95% chance of not working. Unfortunately it is not right or justified to try and preserve life at those odds. Sometimes the best thing to do is give a calm and pain free death.

EverdeRose · 29/10/2019 18:51

I posted before any of your follow up up posts.

A perforated ulcer is a hole in your digestive system. It would cause digestive juices to leak into the abdominal cavity causing pain and infection. This infection would spread. That's why they used antibiotics.

If the surgeons believed he'd have no quality of life if he lived, then they did right not to operate.

Think about what you'd prefer, as relatively old. Would you prefer to live in pain with no quality of life, unable to care for yourself. Or may be die alone on an operating table. Or die surrounded by family relatively pain free and having had the chance to say goodbye to loved ones.

hidinginthenightgarden · 29/10/2019 18:51

I think they made the right decision sorry. 95% chance that he won't survive. It is a waste of medical equipment and time in the eys of the nhs. Thats hard for you because he is your family but was the right decision for him.

Spudina · 29/10/2019 18:52

Sorry for your loss OP.
But the decision not to operate, absolutely does not come down to cost, as stated above. The decision to manage your uncle conservatively was made after weighing up the risks and benefits of the operation. A 95% mortality risk is obviously huge. I wouldn’t want an operation that was almost certainly going to kill me if there was a chance conservative management (ie fluid and antibiotics) would keep me alive. I’m afraid some medical conditions are just not survivable. Can your family arrange to speak with the medical team. I think it would answer the questions you have.

Furrydogmum · 29/10/2019 18:52

I'm so sorry for your loss.
My Grandad was a life-long smoker and had issues that resulted in him going into a nursing home around 1994. He developed gangrene in 1996 which the home didn't pick up on as quickly as they should have. This resulted in his leg being amputated above the knee. He never regained consciousness but was in hospital for a couple of months before dying.
At the end of the day he didn't want to stop smoking and as a result he developed issues related to smoking which were his undoing. I know that he would not have wanted to live in the state he was on post op and wish that thay had just let him go gently, like his sister who died a couple of months before him dosed up on morphine and unaware of what was going on. His end was much harder to witness and I think much harder for him than her. Please let your uncle rest in peace - I'm sure he knows how much you love and miss him.

Original poster
sadaboutlife · 29/10/2019 18:53

@EverdeRose thankyou for that explanation
So do you think the antibiotics in some cases might have cleared the infection?
Or as there was still a hole would that not be the case

OP posts:
XXcstatic · 29/10/2019 18:53

In terms of the hospital it likely boils down to money. Operations cost the NHS money. If they felt he wouldn't survive it they wouldn't want to waste it

That is absolute bollocks, and a really unhelpful and cruel thing to say. NHS surgeons do not decide against operating to save money and, in any case, hospitals get paid per procedure so there is in fact a financial incentive to operate.

I am so sorry for your loss, OP. None of us on here can tell you why the operation was ruled out. If you have questions about what happened, contact PALS, who can help you find out.

ChilledBee · 29/10/2019 18:53

They probably mean he wouldn't have much independence or dignity for the rest of his life for one reason or another. In my relatives case, they'd had never been able to eat or drink again and would be fed through a tube.

ragged · 29/10/2019 18:53

The operation could have killed him faster & if he survived it, almost certainly would have made his life a living hell.

I believe perforated means internal bleeding.

I'm sorry, there weren't good choices. Life isn't fair.

Whether the ulcer could have been found 4 weeks ago ... was he examined for potential ulcers then, is that why you mention that specific time point?

putputput · 29/10/2019 18:53

A perforated ulcer would lead to massive infection. Surgery is pretty much the only option but even if the surgery is successful stomach/bowel content that has already leaked can go on to cause horrible post op infection and often multiple surgeries will be needed. The recovery would be incredibly rough.
I am so sorry that no one sat down and explained and discussed everything with you, but the doctors essentially made a decision to not put him through futile surgery.

villamariavintrapp · 29/10/2019 18:53

If he had blocked arteries and skin ulcers on his feet he would be at very high risk for an anaesthetic, (as these are signs his circulation is very poor) and even if he survived that it's likely to be very difficult for him to heal well after an operation. And an ulcer operation would be a big deal, with a big abdominal wound which would be very likely to get infected. He'd be very unlikely to recover.

Glacecherrychops · 29/10/2019 18:54

Sorry for your loss op Flowers

it's difficult to know from what you've said exactly what happened.

A ruptured stomach ulcer would usually cause serious bleeding (vomiting blood etc.) The treatment for the can be surgery, also a 'camera test' where they patch it up.

Sometimes it's not an ulcer, it's a burst blood vessel. This can happen if people are heavy drinkers and in liver failure.

What exactly did the doctors say about what the problem was and why nothing else could be done? did he have cancer or another serious illness? What's on his death certificate? - Usually all contributing illnesses will be on there.

The decision to withdraw care is taken very seriously, and is NEVER based on cost, not in the NHS anyway. It's a very hard decision to make, especially in the face of opposition from the family.

ItsJustTheOneSwanActually · 29/10/2019 18:55

My understanding is a burst ulcer could cause peritonitis, which can kill you.

DH had one 20 yrs ago and it was a significant surgery that it took him many weeks to recover from. He was a fit and healthy 29 yr old.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

EKGEMS · 29/10/2019 18:55

Surgeon's have to assess the risk of an operation on a patient based on factors such as age,heart disease,kidney disease,etcetera. The doctor's most likely gave him a PPI such as protonix which helps with gastrointestinal bleeding and antibiotics and pain medications. If they had operated on him he could've died on the table or soon thereafter. I am sorry for your loss

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.