Wednesday, 24 September 2025

Legacy & Echoes: The Truth That Still Is

A Note to Medical Staff

If you work in healthcare, I invite you to read this reflection not as a critique, but as a personal account of my lived experience. My Dad’s final months were shaped by delays, dismissals, and a lack of coordinated care. What follows is not a clinical account—it’s a daughter’s truth. I hope it offers insight into the emotional terrain families navigate when answers are slow and dignity is compromised. Sometimes the kindest thing isn’t cure—it’s clarity. Its presence. It’s truth.


Intro Note

This post reflects on the final months of my Dad’s life in 2011. It follows the thread I began in 'Hurdle After Hurdle…,' and shares the truth I never fully blogged about at the time. It’s a reflection on what happens when care is delayed and clarity withheld.

It’s also a story of love, loss, and the beginning of a new chapter.


The Truth That Still Is

I blogged Dad's journey under Hurdle After Hurdle, with the last update on 21st April 2011. The hurdles were real—delays, dismissals, broken machines, missed diagnoses. But on reflection, Dad’s hospital stay was a rollercoaster. One that rattled, shook, and never let up.

------

From 15 March, when Dad finally had his biopsy to confirm pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer, I began documenting every step. He came home sore and sleepy, and we were told to wait two weeks for results. That wait stretched into chaos—appointments were cancelled because consultants were on holiday, results were delayed, and referrals were lost between hospitals. 

I was fuming. I was exhausted. I was keeping eleven pages of notes. And I was kicking arse all the way.

------

I presented Dad to A&E on Friday, 22nd April 2011, and Dad was admitted to the hospital. His BMI was 15. He was in pain, dehydrated, and fading. I spent most breakfast times with him, ready for ward rounds, hoping for answers. Hoping for plans. Hoping someone would see the urgency.

There was no peace.

A helicopter pad was being built near his ward.

Windows couldn’t be opened.

Machines bleeped constantly.

He was catheterised for bladder and bowel.

Regularly repositioned by nurses to prevent pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores.

Subjected to invasive tests.

Too weak to move.

Too tired to fight.

------

By late May, things spiralled. Biopsies remained inconclusive. A laparoscopic investigation revealed fluid build-up, an inflamed pancreas, and no visible tumours. The surgical team never named cancer—only referred to pancreatitis, skirting around the possibility like a waltz.

But the signs of Dad’s chronic weight loss and ill health shouted cancer.  

Every biopsy expected to find it.  

But they didn’t.  

And still, no one said the word.

They inserted a JEJ feeding tube to help him gain strength. But he was vomiting blood. He was nil by mouth. He was on IV fluids, antibiotics, and an insulin pump. I wrote: “He is pretty poorly, and so at the moment, we're taking it one day at a time, hoping that a firm diagnosis will come soon.”

------

On 30 May, Mum and I arrived to the hospital to find Dad surrounded by doctors and nurses, wrapped in a warming blanket, a heater placed at the bottom of his bed.

Dads lung had collapsed.  

His core temperature had dropped dangerously low.  

He was moved to ICU, placed in an induced coma, and intubated.

His body was failing. And still, he had to fight.

He shouldn’t have had to.  

He should have been cared for.  

He should have been given answers—even if it was the hardest answer to give.

The only direct comment had come months earlier, when a consultant told Mum that Dad had “the image of a dying man.”  

It was the same consultant who later ripped me apart in the corridor—for simply asking what the long-term prognosis was.  

"I wasn’t being difficult. I was being a daughter." 

A daughter trying to understand what was happening.  A daughter trying to prepare.  

A daughter trying to help.

But the only answer came when Dad died on the 1st July 2011.

Dad had been told his organs were shutting down, and so he made the decision to be made comfortable. My Mum was called to the hospital because Dad was "feeling a little low" and the first she knew was when Dad asked if she was ok with his decision. Everything after that became a blur, family were called, and one by one arrived at the hospital. 

It was only then that an end-of-life care plan was created.

Dad was just 64.

He was planning his retirement.

We were secretly planning a renewal of wedding vows with Mum for when they celebrated their 40th anniversary the following March.

Still no formal diagnosis.

Still no coordinated care.

Still no clarity.

While the consultant commented Dad had “the image of a dying man.”, it was the coroner—not the hospital—who told me that Dad had died from pancreatic cancer.

------

After...

In the months that followed, everything changed.

I left a marriage that had long felt heavy with silence and contradiction. While I was helping Dad navigate pain and uncertainty, I was also living with someone whose chaos I could no longer carry. We remained friends for a time—he visited me when I needed surgery, we met for coffee—but something in me had shifted.

I moved closer to Mum. We were both grieving, both reeling, both trying to make sense of a world that no longer had Dad in it. It was the beginning of a new chapter. One without Dad, but shaped by his memory—by the quiet strength he carried, and the love that outlived the diagnosis he was never given.

That chapter became the foundation for everything I’ve built since—my advocacy, my sanctuary work, my refusal to let silence win.


🕯️ For Dad

Who deserved better.

And for every patient still waiting.



Hello again

Hello again—and welcome to the beginning of Life in Little Steps.


It’s been over 14 years since I last blogged here. A lot has changed—online and offline—but I’m returning with open hands and a willingness to adapt to the new landscape. I’ll slowly update on some of the changes, but for those new to here, I’d best introduce myself...

I’m Helen—a juggler of life in all its messy, glorious forms. I’ve been married, divorced, loved, hated, bullied, bereaved… all while living with a rare form of childhood arthritis, diagnosed when I was just two.

Life in Little Steps is exactly what it sounds like—my life, one step at a time. It’s also the name of the website I’m slowly building: a space for reflection, resilience, and gentle empowerment. I don’t have all the answers, but I hope that in sharing my experiences—my downfalls and my successes—it might spark a lightbulb for someone else. 

However you found yourself here, whether by search, stumble, or synchronicity—you’re welcome. So, please make yourself comfortable, grab a cuppa, and say hello.



Saturday, 17 September 2011

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: LIB DEMS PASS MOTION AND AMENDMENT ON ESA!!

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: LIB DEMS PASS MOTION AND AMENDMENT ON ESA!!: Wow!! With elation, relief and astonishment I can tell you that the LibDems just passed motion F6 (P17) and the Glasgow North amendment on ESA, Work Capability Assessments and the proposed one year time limit...


Read the fantastic blog by Sue Marsh about the path this momentous journey took....

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Hurdle After Hurdle...

Regular followers of my blog may remember my post from last year - No Longer Invincible... As a recap, my Dad collapsed last February (2010).  He was rushed into hospital where they diagnosed type 2 diabetes.  At the time he was put onto medication but it was hoped he could control the diabetes through diet.




Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: 2nd Reading of Welfare Reform Bill - Summary

Brilliant summary from Diary of a Benefits Scrounger: 




Today was the 2nd reading of the Welfare Reform Bill and, on the whole, it seemed a very constructive, mannerly affair with both sides of the house making reasoned arguments. There seemed to be a genuine desire on both sides of the house to make sure the reforms were fair and any problems resolved.

The main points that came up time and again were those things Ian Duncan Smith couldn't confirm, the parts of reform for which details haven't been decided despite them being in the original bill. These include :




  • Child Tax Credit will be abolished but Ian Duncan Smith cannot confirm what will take it's place. One study seems to imply that whilst currently up to 97% of childcare is paid for, this might drop to 70% acting as a disincentive to work


  • We also don't know what will happen about free school meals, passporting of benefits, disability premiums,  housing for those on DLA or whether DLA will continue after retirement age. Council tax benefit and elements of support for carers are also unclear. Labour argued throughout the debate that there were far too many details yet to be presented to the house.


  • Labour continually pointed out that without work to go to, these reforms would fail and cause hardship and inequality. Jobs MUST be the starting point for welfare reform.

  • The savings cap came up over and over again. Members argued that capping savings at £16,000 for those on Universal Credit did not "foster ambition"

  • Members on both sides raised concerns over the Work Capability Assessments and reassurance was given that these would be addressed.

It was however, noticeable from the start that by far the biggest issue was sickness and disability benefit reform. It came up over and over again from members on both sides of the house, many waving sheaths of letters from frightened constituents. 


A HUGE congratulations to campaigners who have worked tirelessly to make sure that MPs were well informed on the issues sick and disabled people face. It showed in every part of the debate that the message had got through.

Questions were asked on DLA and it seems that the government have backed down on scrapping mobility payments for adults in care homes. Liam Byrne pushed Ian Duncan Smith for confirmation which wasn't quite given, but it was certainly a stronger concession than was given last week.

For a while it looked as though Labour might back down on time limiting ESA and certainly, many Labour MPs raised this issue as one of the greatest causes for concern. Byrne didn't quite back down, but it seemed to me that this may still be up for debate - a positive sign.

Many MPs also mentioned that DLA was in little need of reform. It was an occurring theme that announcing a 20% cut in the benefit before any assessment had taken place could only be viewed as a cost cutting measure and would understandably cause concern. I wondered if there might be a push to remove DLA from the Welfare Reform Bill altogether as too many details were still too unclear? Watch this space....

Concerns were raised over ATOS and the assessment process. Ian Duncan Smith was pushed on whether he would reconsider inflicting regular assessments on those who's disabilities were lifelong or degenerative.  This was one area he stood very firm on. He saw nothing wrong with assessing ANY benefit regularly.

The Conservative side of the argument was nearly always that benefits were far too complicated and that work must pay. I disagree with neither of those statements and felt that there would be little resistance to changing specific details as long as those two points were rigorously upheld. They mentioned a desire to see real jobs that pay - another desire I can't disagree with

Finally, I'd like to point out that attendance in the house was shameful. A handful of MPs scattered the benches during this, the most important change to our welfare system for 60 years. Along with the NHS proposals, I urge EVERY MP to take his or her responsibility more seriously in our name. They ALL need to be informed on these proposals and surely every constituent has the right to think that his or her MP will give this enormous overhaul their full attention?

Sadly, right at the end when the cameras came in, Chris Grayling, the final speaker, turned the debate into a party political row. It WASN'T like that all the way through. This issue should be above politics. To their credit, most who spoke managed this admirably.

The (Lab) amendment failed by 244 Ayes, 317 Noes. Where were the other 89 MPs? Again, I don't care about excuses. This is too important to miss.

Update : John McDonnell MP (Lab) is tweeting that Ed Miliband told Labour MPs (PLP) to vote FOR the bill, and to only support the amendment. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on that one. I'm way too deflated.





© copyright Sue Marsh @ Diary of a Benefit Scrounger






My personal view is that I am hugely disappointed at the lack of MP's.  During the whole debate (and it went for around 7hrs) there were probably no more than 15-20 MP's.  It was only during the photocall that they all piled in...


This welfare reform bill is too big for it simply to be missed.  Peoples lives and futures are in the hands of the Government so its not a time to take a laid back approach.


To put it into context.... The census that will be landing on your doormat over the next couple of days, failure to complete that 32 page booklet could result in a £1000 fine....  


Yet a MP can skip on a vital welfare reform bill discussion... and there will be no comeback...


To me, this fails to represent our needs, but we can only action this in the next election!