British Widow's Heartbreak: Husband's Death Brings Bureaucratic Ordeal

[NoDisplayName]

On 3/29/2025 at 8:40 AM, Bundooman said:

Your sneering, unsympathetic and vicious post tells all of us just who you are!

Where does it mention 'Gofundme'?

I suppose you, with your callous attitude towards this woman's grief; if it were your partner, you would just <deleted> off and leave the body there. 

Just return to Thailand and sneer at India in some sleazy bar over a beer and a BG.

This is the most disgusting post I have ever seen on this forum in my 20 years here.

You should be ashamed of your response - but the likes of you never are - are they?

 

Look, sweetie, it only took her a whole 48 hours to handle all the paperwork and get on a plane with the remains.  Not exactly a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

And then SHE sought out the tabloids to bitch about it, entitled old biddy.

 

She could have chosen to keep it to herself, but SHE decided to share her personal experience with the world.

[1happykamper]

New Delhi? Nooooooooooooooooo

[wavodavo]

On 3/27/2025 at 7:48 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Sounds horrific... to have to go through that alone while suffering the loss of a life long partner.

 

If only governments could show some compassion and work with local consular offices to make such process as smooth and compassionate as possible - it can't be that difficult when all thats needed in most cases is a signature.

 

... It seems the 'humanity' of her suffering was ignored and replaced with indiscriminate bureaucracy - but brutal an completely lacking in basic human decency.

 

At least the lady was sensible enough to have her beloved cremated instead of dealing with the expensive process of bringing home his body.

 

 

 

HQuite rightly so.

The mistake they made is that they went to dirty, stinking , corrupt India.

[Ralf001]

1 minute ago, wavodavo said:

The mistake they made is that they went to dirty, stinking , corrupt India.

 

were they in a position to instruct the pilot on which country they wanted for the emgency landing ?

[metisdead]

Some offensive posts have been removed:

• You will not post vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[kuzmabruk]

On 3/27/2025 at 5:39 PM, Celsius said:

cuz they married bargirls

And can’t wait to burn them 555

[kuzmabruk]

3 hours ago, wavodavo said:

dirty, stinking , corrupt India

Sorry instead of dirty, stinking, corrupt - sorry where do you live?

[Dan O]

On 3/28/2025 at 4:46 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

True...  I wonder if in the same manner an 'epi-pen' can be carried on a flight, can a Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) pen (i.e clexane) be carried to administer in emergencies ?

 

Then the question begs:  Can airlines even carry epi-pens or are they reliant on those with allerigies to carry them themselves ?

 

The question then is: Could the airline flight crew be more 'active' or better protected to admistister medication considered critical without fear of being found at fault - perhaps through 'some sort of international flight laws' that allow for that....

I don't think they are able or medically qualified to diagnose what the true medical condition is so to administer medication correctly would be at best a guess an unwise

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

On 3/28/2025 at 4:46 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

True...  I wonder if in the same manner an 'epi-pen' can be carried on a flight, can a Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) pen (i.e clexane) be carried to administer in emergencies ?

 

Then the question begs:  Can airlines even carry epi-pens or are they reliant on those with allerigies to carry them themselves ?

 

The question then is: Could the airline flight crew be more 'active' or better protected to admistister medication considered critical without fear of being found at fault - perhaps through 'some sort of international flight laws' that allow for that....

I don't think they are able or medically qualified to diagnose what the true medical condition is so to administer medication correctly would be at best a guess an unwise

 

Agreed...     legal liability being more of a concern than life itself.

 

If airlines were able to carry some basics: 

- Epi-Pens

- Heparin (Clexane)

- Nitroglycerin spray

 

All which which could life saving, but as you point out, there is an element of risk.

Standing by an doing nothing has become the legal status-quo.

 

[Dan O]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Agreed...     legal liability being more of a concern than life itself.

 

If airlines were able to carry some basics: 

- Epi-Pens

- Heparin (Clexane)

- Nitroglycerin spray

 

All which which could life saving, but as you point out, there is an element of risk.

Standing by an doing nothing has become the legal status-quo.

 

I never said anything about legal liability. While thats a concern for many its not necessarily the overriding issue.

 

Its more taking the proper medical action and without the right knowledge of what the problem actually is you could very well injure or kill someone needlessly with the wrong action medically. 

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, Dan O said:

I never said anything about legal liability. While thats a concern for many its not necessarily the overriding issue.

 

Its more taking the proper medical action and without the right knowledge of what the problem actually is you could very well injure or kill someone needlessly with the wrong action medically. 

 

And legal liability is a facet of that (whether you said it or not).

 

The medication I mentioned has very little negative side effects, unless complicated by 'other medications'... 

 

From a moral facet - trying 'something' with basic medical knowledge is a better option that watching them die.

 

Example: Giving someone suffering a cardiac-arrest Nitroglycerin spray can have significant immediate impact with very little downside. 

 

In fact a lot of Airlines carry both Epi-Pens and Nitroglycerin spray (or tablets) as part of their medical kits....  as its becoming more widely acceptable for laymen to admister such medication. 

 

Clexane (Low Molecular Weight) Heparin is not commonly part of standard emergency kits carried by airlines - however - Thrombosis is a major risk issue on flights.

 

Just like a DVT and / or Pulmonary Embolism, a stroke is a thrombotic event that can be minimised with medication such as Heparin - which effectively thins the blood with little side effect (unless on other medication) - its surely better than watching someone die (thats just my perspective, I'm sure an Airline lawyer would disagree).

 

Its the same principle as having an automated external defibrillator (AED) in public areas where the public are protected by 'good samaritan regulations' where as liability is a greater concern for corporations such as airlines. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan O]

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

And legal liability is a facet of that (whether you said it or not).

 

The medication I mentioned has very little negative side effects, unless complicated by 'other medications'... 

 

From a moral facet - trying 'something' with basic medical knowledge is a better option that watching them die.

 

Example: Giving someone suffering a cardiac-arrest Nitroglycerin spray can have significant immediate impact with very little downside. 

 

In fact a lot of Airlines carry both Epi-Pens and Nitroglycerin spray (or tablets) as part of their medical kits....  as its becoming more widely acceptable for laymen to admister such medication. 

 

Clexane (Low Molecular Weight) Heparin is not commonly part of standard emergency kits carried by airlines - however - Thrombosis is a major risk issue on flights.

 

Just like a DVT and / or Pulmonary Embolism, a stroke is a thrombotic event that can be minimised with medication such as Heparin - which effectively thins the blood with little side effect (unless on other medication) - its surely better than watching someone die (thats just my perspective, I'm sure an Airline lawyer would disagree).

 

Its the same principle as having an automated external defibrillator (AED) in public areas where the public are protected by 'good samaritan regulations' where as liability is a greater concern for corporations such as airlines. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your not really on point with your suggestion about use if an AED as a life support instrument being the same as administering medication.

 

If a layman tries to use it in an inappropriate situation the AED will not fire unless electrical impulse from the heart is within specified parameters.

 

I worked in the medical industry specifically with all thoracic instrumentation and can attest that their use is not the same as administering medication in an unknown scenario.

 

  While airline may have the medicine you mentioned in their crash kit it isn't dispensed " just in case". Its there for situation that can be identified as appropriate.  Your suggestion implies no one would help a person in distress which is far from the fact. Airline staff are not instructed to just stand by and watch people die because of legal liability issues. They take every appropriate action available including call for medical assistance from trained personnel that may be on the flight, to contacting medical service for support while in flight but administering medication in an unknown medical emergency just in case is not one of them.