Helen

Helen is 57; she has one daughter and twin sons. In 2006, her 16-year old twin sons were involved in a car crash which left one, Christopher, in a coma. He was placed on a ventilator and underwent a craniotomy. Helen was told within days that he was very unlikely ever to recover. The consultant who operated on him commented, “We threw everything at him, including the kitchen sink, maybe we shouldn’t have.”

At first Helen was in shock, and could not believe that her son was not coming back to her. She was determined that with enough love, care and faith he would make a meaningful recovery. After difficulties with one care home and incidents of poor care Helen eventually moved her son into an excellent care home where he received very skilled and compassionate care. But in spite of some initial signs of progress, Christopher went backwards rather than progressing and over time hope faded. Christopher had convulsions, bouts of MRSA and recurrent lung and urinary tract infections. Helen does not believe her son would have wanted to live like this in a twilight world where he could not communicate and where the only response he gave appeared to be reacting to pain. She says: such a lonely existence would have been terrifying for a loving and complex individual. Living on red alert for years was also draining and exhausting for the whole family.

When she first heard of the possibility of withdrawing Christopher’s nutrition and hydration Helen dismissed this: My first reaction was, I’m not that sort of person. The family was also given misinformation which profoundly distressed them all. However, her feeling was that if nature took its course he would have died a long time ago and eventually she made enquiries about the possibility of withdrawing his feeding tube. It was important to her that the ultimate responsibility for any decision lay with the court. She remembers being comforted by her barrister telling her: you’re asking the question of the court. ‚ You’re not deciding to end your son’s life, the judge and the court will make that decision. She says: I felt as if a burden had been lifted then.

In 2010 the Court of Protection declared that it was lawful and in Christopher’s best interests to have artificial nutrition and hydration withdrawn. Helen witnessed the excellent palliative care Christopher received in his last days and believes he was able to die with grace and dignity, and that he is now, finally, at peace. Helen is keen to share her experience in the hope that it may help others think about the options and do whatever is right for them and their family.

Helen told us about the choice of gravestone for her son and the importance to being able to remember her son with happiness.

Gender Female

Her son’s funeral was a lovely occasion, and Helen had the strong sense that her son was there with her.

Gender Female

Helen would like to see a wide spread changes in policies and social attitudes.

Gender Female

Helen now knows what the whole family would want.

Gender Female

Helen, like some other people we spoke to, initially resisted the idea of withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from her son but came to reassess this.

Gender Female

After some initial challenges, Helen found the legal procedure was robust and it was helpful to know that the final decision was not her responsibility. She explains what happened in her case, and offers advice to other families.

Gender Female

Helen describes her son’s death after his feeding tube was withdrawn as peaceful, calm and dignified.

Gender Female

Helen has seen a range of care homes and emphasises the importance of the quality of the staff, rather than the buildings.

Gender Female

Helen says that being able to cuddle her son in his vegetative state, gave her comfort but she came to feel that such comfort came at too high a cost.

Gender Female

Eventually Helen’s hope for her son’s recovery was replaced by hope that the rest of the family might be able to get on with living.

Gender Female