| An ethical question on DNR
Posted: 4/2/2008 5:00:15 PM | There's lots of old people in hospitals with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders whom are quite content to let death claim them so long as its natural causes.
A common cause is the flu - denying flu shots could wipe out tons of them every flu season. Would you say its unethical to not voluntarily give flu shots?
(would still give them if they ask for them) | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/2/2008 6:57:10 PM | There's lots of old people in hospitals with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate)
Understand that a DNR or DNAR is the wish of the patient through a living will, or via the Power of Attorney from wishes made to them from the patient. What a DNR is, is an instruction to the Health Care providers to not attempt CPR in cases such as heart or pulmonary failure. It’s important to understand that DNR does NOT mean Do Not Treat – patients will still be given the utmost care and be kept clear of any symptoms or be provided with as much comfort as possible as has been told to me.
Would you say its unethical to not voluntarily give flu shots?
Not only is this unethical, but probably a cause for a wrongful death suit, should it occur. Preventative treatment and DNR are two different things.
If the patient still suffers a cessation of pulmonary or heart functions while still being cared for in the normal course, and a DNR is in place – then the DNR should be observed.
There is much much more to this topic - the medical profession is bound to ethics - if not, see you in court for malpractice. | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/2/2008 7:26:17 PM | how many people with flu have DNR signs on their beds?
not many. | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/2/2008 7:28:04 PM | | If I were extremely old (80 plus) and in bad health, I would not want to be revived if I died peacefully from some common illness like the flu. | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/2/2008 8:39:26 PM | Who gets to set the age where we start to "wipe them out" by denying care? I thought 40 was pretty damned old 20 years ago. I mean, what do these over 40 people really have to offer?  A lot of these old people are kept alive through constant feeding as well, perhaps we could cut back on that? If they asked for food though, we could give them some. | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/2/2008 9:41:16 PM | Well I don't see how ethical comes into play or maybe just a bad example...
Flu shots are voluntary anyway
The flu shot is not a garanteed fix against the flu and actually giving the shot to someone could make them more sick IF they had a reaction.
Short of the person not having the capacity to make the decision themselves, it really doesnt boil down to ethics of the medical community. There is enough public info and media about the flu shot for a person to make that decision themselves, again given they are able.
Now given a circumstance where there was some airborne disease going around that required a vac to be safe and the medical staff chose not to even inform the elderly population because they are on their way out anyways, then that is unethical... | |
|
| an ethical question
Posted: 4/3/2008 5:22:53 AM | | I completely agree with trappedonbayst, DNR is not do not treat, it is also not a do not prevent illness order. Flu shots are an option for the patient, some people want them, and some don't. Withholding information about a potential beneficial treatment is unethical by any definition and under any circumstance; it should always be the decision of the patient or the responsible party. Personally I think the DNR is backwards, we need consent to perform invasive medical procedures, the DNR is the only procedure we need consent not to perform. | |
|
| An ethical question on DNR
Posted: 4/3/2008 11:26:19 PM |
There's lots of old people in hospitals with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders whom are quite content to let death claim them so long as its natural causes. I can see trappedonbayst's point. Many old people are just waiting for the end of their life, and would be happy to pass away to the flu. Many people want to be treated for if the cure is simple, but not if it's going to very painful, very long, and will only give them a few months at best. Many people would be happy to stay dead, but would still want to be treated while alive. The trouble is that the standard living wills as we hear of them, only seem to cover one-size-fits-all type of description.
We could really do with a more detailed version.
A common cause is the flu - denying flu shots could wipe out tons of them every flu season. Would you say its unethical to not voluntarily give flu shots? (would still give them if they ask for them) Not if they genuinely didn't want them. I've met very old men, who were married for 50 years to the same woman. When she passed away, they just didn't want to go on living. Even when they got over the grieving period, I've heard that such men just weren't living. They'd lived their life. They were waiting to die.
However, my opinion is that this isn't a reason to save money and resources by offering such options. It's merely a way to carry out a person's wishes. But if they are willing to live, all that can be done, should be done, wherever possible. | |
|
Home
login 
