lil bit wrote:Mathurin wrote:lil bit wrote:Mathurin wrote:lil bit wrote:You are confusing DNR with euthanasia.
I am extrapolating involuntary DNR to a very low level of euthanasia, yes.
Then you are wrong, because it's not the same at all.Because withholding resuscitation is one step, next might be certain life prolonging drugs or treatments, how long until death is the only treatment offered?
One thing does not follow the other. There are times when it is not in the best interests of the patient to resuscitate them if they suffer a cardiac arrest - which is stating the obvious.
One thing does not _HAVE_ to follow the other, that does not mean one thing does not increase the chances of another.
In this case it does. Why should it?
In the US DNRs required a long court battle to be recognized by the medical profession, they considered it their duty to provide any and all life saving treatment.
Now it seems that medical doctors in the UK can write it down without consulting the patient.
You dont see that as a step down a dangerous path.
lil bit wrote:lil bit wrote:Resuscitation can be painful and invasive and can sometimes mean instead of slipping away peacefully, the person lingers on for perhaps weeks in great discomfort.
Yes, resuscitation can be the the difference between life and death, sometimes that life is not worth living, but that decision is only for the patient to make, maybe next of kin. Not the doctor, and most definitely NOT when the patient has clearly and obviously stated they were opposed to it.
Unfortunately, doctors aren't miracle workers and cannot prevent people dying from terminal illnesses.lil bit wrote:It's not a decision that is made without the knowledge of at least the next of kin whenever possible.
You should have read the link properly.
Which part of the link stated the hospital had consent for the DNR.
Maybe you mean: "The trust, which strongly disputes the family's claims, says a doctor did seek Mrs Tracey's informed consent."
At absolute best I see a hospital harrassing a patient they dont want to treat anymore into an agreement.
The husband is grief stricken and looking for someone to blame for his wife's death from terminal lung cancer and a broken neck, when there is no one to blame.
A broken neck is not always fatal, lung cancer is a long term thing that had been diagnosed recently, neither HAD to kill her immediately, she could have lived for months, maybe years with proper treatment.
lil bit wrote:Nobody killed her. She died.
Even while his wife was intubated after the road accident, he lived in hope.
He was told by a doctor that if there were problems with ventilation being withdrawn, they would let her "slip away" but he was not aware of the first DNR notice until after it had been cancelled.
Although known as DNR notices, they are officially termed 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' forms.
Mr Tracey looked up cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but did not think it was relevant in his wife's case as she did not have a heart condition, and he did not speak to the doctors about it
As you can see, he's not too bright which doesn't help. He didn't have a problem with the doctor telling him they would let her slip away, but didn't realise that meant she would need a DNR order so that any doctor reading her notes would know know she was to be allowed to die.
Asking a patient or their next of kin to agree to a DNR order isn't always best thing to do, as it just adds to the fear and distress of the ill person and their family.
By law doctors are supposed to ask, which is why this poor woman was "badgered". The staff had to have a decision from her, which she refused to give.
As she was mentally capable and conscious, it was up to her to decide - not her husband or family.
He reassured his shocked wife, who was in tears, that neither he nor their daughters agreed to the notice
The poor woman obviously didn't understand, and her family didn't try to reassure her or get hold of a nurse to talk to her about it.
You seem to be claiming the woman herself agreed to the DNR, when from the information we have she did not.
Oh yes, apparently all are quite stupid, does that mean she should die before she had to?
I dont know about the UK, in the US its a form, a document that must be signed. This is not a doctors choice, it is not a decision that can be implied.
Mark my words, if this continues people will start hiring lawyers to sit in on their consultations with doctors to make sure nothing implicit is slipped past them quietly.
lil bit wrote:lil bit wrote:If you have faith in this 'new world' humans have created in a small section of the world in very recent history then by all means, go right ahead, I am just far more cynical.
Rest assured, I am totally behind people being able to decide to end their own lives, I am just worried that assisted suicide and government provided healthcare will come together with a euthanistic crash, so its something I want to watch carefully.
Then you are worrying needlessly.
Watch it carefully by all means, but don't try to make something out of nothing.
Yeah, I guess nobody has ever used euthanasia to clear out hospitals to 'make room' or otherwise used the concept of reduced public expenditure as an excuse to practice euthanasia.
Not as far as I know. I can't speak for the US, but I doubt it happens there, either.
I doubted it as well, then I read this.
Selective treatment, or "passive euthanasia" would be the mildest form allowed under current law. And people do practice it.
I have already seen the propaganda for it, from a different nation and time.
lil bit wrote:You're just looking for a reason to discredit UHC.
On the one hand you have this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/ ... /dnr.shtml
It's difficult to make a judgment as we don't know her health problems, but this is sadly only too common:
Age Concern warned that the UK's elderly feared they were at risk of not being revived simply because of their age.
Arguing that DNRs might be a form of ageism in the NHS, a spokeseman said "Age Concern will not rest until the 'writing off' of patients' lives on the basis of their age has been stamped out."
That's not really the case. Elderly people are far more likely to suffer broken ribs and pneumonia if DNR is successful, so they will die anyway.
Also elderly people sometimes panic when they are asked about DNR orders. They immediately think the doctor is expecting their heart to stop, when there may only be a tiny chance of that happening.
On the other hand, you have this:
This woman knows exactly what can DNR involve.
Her granddaughter Dr Claire Polack, a GP in Edinburgh, told the BBC her grandmother was right that the medical profession did not discuss the issue of resuscitation enough
I think that's true. In the case of cardiac arrest caused by shock or trauma, DNR is vital.
But not when a patient has died because they were terminally ill.
Many things that are logical are also morally wrong.
Eugenics and euthanasia went hand in hand during the first 30-40 years of the last century, and it makes incredibly logical sense to use both to improve all of humanity. Spending resources on healthcare for the infirm or mentally ill is a waste, entirely futile.
But refusing to do so is morally wrong.
If we continue down the UHC path this will be possibly the biggest issue of this century; how much of a nations wealth should be spent on prolonging the life of those who no longer generate any wealth.