Along with the decision to slap a DNR on him without any discussion, much less agreement, with anyone. A cynic might wonder if that was the case because he had Downs Syndrome and was ‘economically inactive
Like so many stories, the amount of detail we are given seems to change as we go along.
1) the brother did not die because there were too few ventilators
2) if the brother was never going to be ventilated, this was a medical decision, nothing to do with politics
3) the author of the article suggests this was because, having Downs Syndrome, the brother was not regarded as “economically inactive”
This is a whole new area- if a hospital department has decided to place a DNR notice on a patient because of Downs, we are looking at something else.
A DNR is a hard thing for the rest of us to stomach. But when Paw signed his it was clear to both of us that medical intervention in the event of e.g.cardiac arrest would be more than he could survive . That did not preclude an induced coma when the time came to enable further surgical intervention to investigate or repair the source of a massive internal bleeding.
He was on life support for 24 hours to enable an accurate assessment of multiple organ failure , to allow us to be with him at the end and the breathing tube was the last thing to be removed when his heart finally failed in order to save him distress.
Being ventilated can gain time for the organs to fight back but it is not a cure.
If a patient will not benefit from intubation, there is no point in using resources which could benefit another patient.
As this is a major decision, it is not left up to nurses as somebody somewhere suggested, but by senior doctors at least 2, it used to be referred to as the Three Wise Men protocol.
So this is a much more complex issue than first presented, but the bottom line is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Boris Johnson or politics and as such does not belong in this context.