It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I will not speak for other hospitals, but in the hostpital where I work (ICU nurse) we do not just keep people alive "for the money." We follow the wishes of the patient, and the family. Sometimes the family just doesn't want to let go. I have had many long frank discussions with family members, explaining what their loved ones were going through, and the chances of survival with any kind of quality of life. (This was done at the doctor's direction, after he had discussed it with them, or it was initiated by a loved one, who was confuesed and didn't know which way to turn.)
The hospital made a mistake by resusitating you father if he had an advanced directive, but in all fairness to the nurses, their first instinct is to save the patient. If the living will was on the chart, the doctor should have asked a couple of pertinant questions, and then called it.
The problem is, the doctors, the nurses, everyone involved are human and they dislike seeing someone under their care die. Young nurses and doctors are the worse, because they are "gung ho" and haven't seen the suffering that can occur at end of life.
I am a firm believer in DNR's and living wills. It should be the patient, and the family who makes that decision. If they desire input from the doctors and nurses, it should be availabe.
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh] –noun
1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by getreadyalready
I think it should be a personal choice, I don't think it should be illegal, and I don't see any harm in requiring this advance planning.
Do you not see any harm in advanced planning in general or do you not see any harm in the government deciding what your "options" for death are?
Could you please clarify.
Oh, I said earlier that it was a very slippery slope, and that money should not figure into the equation at all!
I see plenty of potential pitfalls! However, we have plenty of pitfalls in the current environment as well. Right now the Healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies are running unchecked. The law supports their efforts to keep you alive at all costs and bilk the insurance providers.
At least in the new system it is kind of a check and balance. Government Insurance vs. Profit Mongers.
I don't see a problem with the "planning" and foresight of an inevitable death, but I don't want the decision based on anyone's "budget"!!!!
Someone mentioned terminal kids earlier. That is a huge topic! No parent is going to opt for an early exit for their kid. If the gov't steps in and says that they have to, it will result in serious shockwaves!
By the same token, the gov't should not say that they 'cannot' opt for an early exit and prosecute those that assist them.
Originally posted by Alxandro
Come on people, why are some of y'all being so literal about this?
I did more than than read the bill, I read between the lines.
‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary);
‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘(iii) the use of antibiotics;
‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.
Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by weedwhacker
He may be a "adulterous scumbag" but this has no bearing because the Obama bill should speak for itself.
I suggest you forget about the "scumbag" radio host and read the universal End Of Life healthcare bill.
Here it is again