This is too dangerous. DNRs and making euthanasia legal are easy ways to get rid of patients and make the medical staffs job easy. The patients pay with their lives or can be damaged from the strong sedatives. The staff can medicate patients into a coma and get away with it by telling the family that the elder person is deteriorating from dementia instead of the drugs. I have actually seen the staff yell out DNR as they continue to drug the patient every few minutes even if this patient is already in a drug induced coma. Anyone with a DNR should get it taken off especially if it is and elder person.
I also want to address the comment about good heart does not equal good clinical decisions and lay people trusting medical professionals, would you recommend that for the situation my dad was in, I told my story, he was almost comatose and a Dr put a DNR on his chart, would you not advocate for your loved one, would you trust this person that obviously has an evil heart to make good decisions, clinical or otherwise about your loved one. Advocating for the patient forces communication and it has been proven to increase quality of care. You make it sound if Dr are gods to be listened to and trusted regardless of their obvious poor clinical decisions, I am thinking you come out of that industry and did not like being question by some layman, if not forgive me. I have personally seen Drs make really poor clinical decisions and when questioned had little temper tantrums, if you read what I wrote, I did give credit to the good Drs, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. I STAND WITH MY ADVICE, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE AND TELL OTHERS TO ADVOCATE. It saves much heartache for all involved. I also believe that an evil heart does effect all decisions made by that person, we have all seen it in action at one time or another.
I remember overhearing a young paediatric nurse tell an anxious mother (and this was supposed to be good news) "he pee-ewed this morning!" Mother nonplussed, as well she might be - what fresh H*ll..? Nurse apologised (sort of. She giggled nervously. I was ready to pull back the bed curtain and slap her) and explained that p.u. stands for pass urine. The nurse saved one syllable and made herself completely incomprehensible in the process. And the *mother* ended up feeling thick because she didn't understand something so simple.
It's a bit of a bête-noire, communication. Drives me potty.
Mike, Flowgo's mother wrote her own directive, including a DNR, well before she voluntarily went into hospital for the minor elective procedure. I did begin to wonder if her mother had been entirely truthful with Flowgo about what exactly was going on from the outset. She never wanted to share what the procedure was, or what the (finally agreed on) certified cause of death was.
Unfortunately, this is the mistake we made with my grandma, who was denied her fluid pill, sedated with morphine and let to suffocate to death by these "medical professionals".
Just my two cents based on my experiences.
Most people agree that a DNR is to stop resuscitation when it would be detrimental to quality of life, and frankly, I prefer a DNR to having my ribs broken at any age. But, please be respectful.
I agree with you that grief is THE natural response to loss. I'm sure Pam would, too. Heaven knows she has experienced enough of it.
What she is advocating is the use of medication for people who, even in the fullness of time, find themselves unable to adapt and are suffering disproportionately. Being grief-stricken, after all, does not make a person less vulnerable to mental illness.
How many more times do I have to point this out?
She does take pills for her own anxieties (or did while she was posting here.)
While she was active, 17,800+ of her posts were given thumbs up. Apparently other members did not find her totally insensitive.
I don't mind when old posts are brought up again, for new discussion. But trying to argue with someone's opinion from 3 years ago, especially when that someone is no longer participating, seems to me pointless. I especially don't like it when someone assumes things about that poster that could easily be verified or refuted by simply reading the poster's profile.
You can certainly disagree with Pam's views, Damita. But assuming that she must never have lost a loved one is way out of line.
I say this not to provoke an argument, but because someone stumbling across this post might not know this and might go away misinformed.
McAlvie, many elderly patients with DNR orders are being killed with morphine, sedatives, and pulling sugar from their IV's, often if they have no terminal illness and resuscitation was not an issue. When my father was murdered that way, I started talking to people, and almost everybody I spoke with had a story to tell about an elder relative or friend with a DNR who died when he or she shouldn't have (only since Obamakill took effect). It's not just about resuscitation or not, it's about healthy people being actively killed simply because they are old and have DNRs. The hospital needed the bed. This never happened before Obamacare.
I've never signed one. My husband has never signed one, as well as many other people I know.
When a patient is pressured or forced to sign a DNR, it's usually so that death can be imposed or "allowed" by denying care.
A DNR is not mandatory in any medical setting. Although many patients are lead to believe they are today.
I will never sign a DNR.
I do agree with you that this has been going on long before Obamacare. I believe Obamacare has made it worse, but the problems started when secular bioethics were accepted, in exchange for moral based ethics. This happened in the 70's.
And equating your father (who declined and died) and mine (who was healthy and killed) makes no sense. Who equates two completely different things?
You appear to be an apologist for Obamakill.
Oh yeah, your argument that hospitals don't empty beds (with patients they won't make any money from) to make room for other ones (who will be more profitable) is wrong as well. Hospitals are businesses. Obamacare does not pay for patients with DNR's.
According to the AHA, only 18 percent of U.S. hospitals are private, "for-profit" hospitals.
Now obviously, abuse can occur - with almost anything you could imagine, but Flowgo was proposing to end the possibility of DNRs signed by individuals who wanted to sign them. The fact that something can be abused does not mean that it has to be abolished. And frankly what people here are describing seems to me to fall in the category of medical malpractice, mercy killing, murder, or just plan Murphy's Law. What does a DNR have to do with it?
telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/8829350/Elderly-patients-condemned-to-early-death-by-secret-use-of-do-not-resuscitate-orders.html
As a loyal reader of the Torygraph (as we affectionately call it), I have to tell you that Laura Donnelly is the second silliest medical journalist in the mainstream press. The first silliest is her colleague, Sarah Knapton.
More recently - the week before last, in fact, on a Friday afternoon - I reported my layman's concern about a friend I'd visited to the hospital's safeguarding team. The report was followed up that day and the patient, whether it's a coincidence or not, is now doing very well. The NHS has been teetering on the brink of collapse for the whole of the forty years I've been paying attention to it, but its POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) system is working fine. Probably better than it ever has been.
MDwright I hope that you have involved law enforcement to get the unethical professionals prosecuted for what they did to your dad. The charts will reveal the truth and even though it will not bring your dad back, you could be saving others from the same heart break.
The way they killed him was by sedating him, giving him morphine 6 times a day when he was not in pain, and taking the sugar out of his IV. But I reversed all this.........no morphine, no sedatives, and put the da## sugar back in his IV, get him some solid food.......... and my father got 100% better.