DNR Bracelets

[CatholicSpirit]

I think it’s wrong for a Catholic to wear a DNR bracelet, for me, I have faith that a solution might arise. Still, the people who I learned about it from coerced me to saying, “ok” to putting a cat down due to pain from illness. Now I have sort of a regret about that. Did I help someone kill an animal, what is the Church’s take on all this? I hardly ever hear Catholics referring to DNR (hopefully because they aren’t ok with it)

 

[In_Hoc_Signo312]

Could you explain what DNR is?

 

[edward_george]

Here’s a good summary of the Catholic position on Do Not Resuscitate orders:

ncbcenter.org/index.php/download_file/view/564/158/

(Warning: PDF download).

Basically, it’s something that has to be determined on a case by case, patient by patient basis. There are some cases wherein to resuscitate someone might cause serious trauma, as CPR is a very traumatic treatment, often resulting in broken bones and even punctured lungs. However, at the same time, people shouldn’t place a DNR order far in advance simply out of a fear of medical technology. It has to be evaluated based on particular circumstances. I recommend reading the document I’ve linked. The National Catholic Bioethics Center is very solid on these sorts of things.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Catholic1954]

I think it’s wrong for a Catholic to wear a DNR bracelet, for me, I have faith that a solution might arise. Still, the people who I learned about it from coerced me to saying, “ok” to putting a cat down due to pain from illness. Now I have sort of a regret about that. Did I help someone kill an animal, what is the Church’s take on all this? I hardly ever hear Catholics referring to DNR (hopefully because they aren’t ok with it)

I am sorry for the loss of your cat, however, putting a cat down is not equivalent to a DNR for people. Putting the cat to sleep was the responsible and humane thing to do to save it from pain and illness, but a DNR order only lets the natural course of things to take place without human interference. God is with us at all times, if a solution is to be found, He will find it or call us home. P.S. If you do not wish for a DNR make sure your doctor and everyone in your family knows it. Put it in writing somewhere; in a medical emergency, there is much confusion and emotional indecisiveness and your intentions should be clear before hand.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

I have an anti-DNR in place for sure. Sadly Fr, reading that 2 page DNR paper told me nothing about whether the church says it’s a good or bad thing. They should have said, “if you have fragile ribs, it’s understood, under age 45, no-go.” Something to actually facualize it so we can make better decisions as Catholics.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Your indication “do not resuscitate” [DNR] is frequently called a “no code order.”The omission of CPR after cardiopulmonary arrest results in death.The decision to write a DNR order should be based on two crucial considerations:
• The judgment that CPR is unlikely to restore normal cardiac rhythms.
•The judgment that CPR amounts to medical futility, i.e., it is not beneficial.
o CPR may be medically futile in the final stages of a terminal illness;or when it procures only a short- term survival.

rcda.org/Offices/pastoral_care_ministry/pdf/Advance_Directive_Guide.English_only.pdf

zenit.org/articles/catholics-and-do-not-resuscitate-orders/

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I have an anti-DNR in place for sure. Sadly Fr, reading that 2 page DNR paper told me nothing about whether the church says it’s a good or bad thing. They should have said, “if you have fragile ribs, it’s understood, under age 45, no-go.” Something to actually facualize it so we can make better decisions as Catholics.

It is a judgment only an individual can make weighing overall medical condition and willingness to endure the process. There is no hard fast rule for all. It is a decision that should be made in consultation with a priest or chaplain and doctor.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

That paper is a good read, although, it starts with the notion that a person is responsible for preserving life. Then, at the end of part 5, it seems to say that a person isn’t necessarily requesting to die… Or so it seems. And, it is in a section labeled “Catechism of the church.” I’m not sure what to make of it. My belief was that we are supposed to refuse any potential early death if offered in it’s many forms. At least, that’s how I was raised, but there now seems to be some sort of “grey matter.”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That paper is a good read, although, it starts with the notion that a person is responsible for preserving life. Then, at the end of part 5, it seems to say that a person isn’t necessarily requesting to die… Or so it seems. And, it is in a section labeled “Catechism of the church.” I’m not sure what to make of it. My belief was that we are supposed to refuse any potential early death if offered in it’s many forms. At least, that’s how I was raised, but there now seems to be some sort of “grey matter.”

I think this statement from part 5 of the RDs puts it in perspective:

“We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome.”

So your belief that “we are supposed to refuse any potential early death if offered in it’s many forms” does not seem accurate to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Mine is perhaps a more practical response.

Once I was a speaker participant in a seminar about “Living Wills” (which generally include DNR instructions). Perhaps I was being flippant at a point, saying that handing out Living Wills all over the place is “potentially putting your life in the hands of the third shift charge nurse in a hospital in Muskogee, Oklahoma”. Why Muskogee? Because a lot of people here in S.W.Mo. travel to Texas for various reasons, and Muskogee is on the way.

Another speaker immediately agreed with me, stating that he is a third shift charge nurse in a hospital in Springfield, Mo, and agreed that “Living wills” should only be given to trusted family members, not willy-nilly to providers.

Later on, the physician member of the panel was asked when, exactly, he thought withholding of medical treatment is indicated. “When the patient can no longer participate in the things he enjoys most in life.” was the response.

Astonished, I asked him “…Like playing golf, even if perhaps the person could learn to enjoy reading instead even if he didn’t like it as much as golf?” “Yes” the physician replied.
He then went on to explain how he directed withholding antibiotics to his own father when he had pneumonia, because his father had cancer and would die within a few months anyway. His father was not, at the time, in pain, though his life had certainly diminished in quality.

Now, after the presentation, the audience (hundreds of medical people, mainly students) were asked for a hands-up vote on whether medical treatment should be withheld in all circumstances when the patient was immobile or had a terminal disease or otherwise had a life that they felt “just wasn’t worth living”. The vote was about half one way and half the other.

So, one can just about figure that the chances are about 50-50 that the third shift charge nurse in Muskogee will just let you go if you have one of those DNR bracelets on, if he/she does or does not subjectively think your life is “worth living”.

Disconcerting in the extreme, I would say. And I don’t think many people have any idea how subjective a DNR decision really is.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Suppose a person suffers from a severe depression, but to them suicide is not an option.

Could they have a DNR order in place so if they suffered, say, a heart attack they could “take advantage” of the opportunity and be allowed to die?

 

[CatholicSpirit]

That’s what I was thinking lost_sheep. The person who I learned about DNR from was previously suicidal. Perhaps deep in my mind I am thinking religion would stop them because I loved them very much.

 

[Viki63]

Suppose a person suffers from a severe depression, but to them suicide is not an option.

Could they have a DNR order in place so if they suffered, say, a heart attack they could “take advantage” of the opportunity and be allowed to die?

That’s not the purpose of a DNR order. A person with severe depression should see his MD and get treatment for it. If one medication doesn’t help after a few weeks, another one might; and counseling is also helpful.

.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Mine is perhaps a more practical response.

Once I was a speaker participant in a seminar about “Living Wills” (which generally include DNR instructions). Perhaps I was being flippant at a point, saying that handing out Living Wills all over the place is “potentially putting your life in the hands of the third shift charge nurse in a hospital in Muskogee, Oklahoma”. Why Muskogee? Because a lot of people here in S.W.Mo. travel to Texas for various reasons, and Muskogee is on the way.

Another speaker immediately agreed with me, stating that he is a third shift charge nurse in a hospital in Springfield, Mo, and agreed that “Living wills” should only be given to trusted family members, not willy-nilly to providers.

Later on, the physician member of the panel was asked when, exactly, he thought withholding of medical treatment is indicated. “When the patient can no longer participate in the things he enjoys most in life.” was the response.

Astonished, I asked him “…Like playing golf, even if perhaps the person could learn to enjoy reading instead even if he didn’t like it as much as golf?” “Yes” the physician replied.
He then went on to explain how he directed withholding antibiotics to his own father when he had pneumonia, because his father had cancer and would die within a few months anyway. His father was not, at the time, in pain, though his life had certainly diminished in quality.

Now, after the presentation, the audience (hundreds of medical people, mainly students) were asked for a hands-up vote on whether medical treatment should be withheld in all circumstances when the patient was immobile or had a terminal disease or otherwise had a life that they felt “just wasn’t worth living”. The vote was about half one way and half the other. It

So, one can just about figure that the chances are about 50-50 that the third shift charge nurse in Muskogee will just let you go if you have one of those DNR bracelets on, if he/she does or does not subjectively think your life is “worth living”.

Disconcerting in the extreme, I would say. And I don’t think many people have any idea how subjective a DNR decision really is.

But the entire point of th Advance Directive is to take the decision our of the hands of the 3rd shift charge nurse or any caregivers and give it to the patient. The Living Will could say, “Do everything” if the patient wanted it to. The DNR is a doctor order the the doctor writes after a discussion with the patient. So yes, if you are in the ER with a DNR they will nor resuscitate. That is the point of it. The Living Will expresses what the patient thinks is “worth living”. The Durable Power of Attorney articulates who the patient would want to make decisions if the patient were unable to decide. So yes again, it should be a trusted person who will carry out the patients wishes. We should all have Advance Directives. That is. a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Do Not Resuscitate Order is a verry different matter intended for some one with serious disease and/or near the end of life.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Suppose a person suffers from a severe depression, but to them suicide is not an option.

Could they have a DNR order in place so if they suffered, say, a heart attack they could “take advantage” of the opportunity and be allowed to die?

I don’t think a good doctor would write the order for an otherwise physically healthy person.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

That’s not the purpose of a DNR order. A person with severe depression should see his MD and get treatment for it. If one medication doesn’t help after a few weeks, another one might; and counseling is also helpful.

You’ve obviously never suffered a long-term depressive illness. You make it sound like treatment is as easy as popping an aspirin for a headache.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But the entire point of th Advance Directive is to take the decision our of the hands of the 3rd shift charge nurse or any caregivers and give it to the patient. The Living Will could say, “Do everything” if the patient wanted it to. The DNR is a doctor order the the doctor writes after a discussion with the patient. So yes, if you are in the ER with a DNR they will nor resuscitate. That is the point of it. The Living Will expresses what the patient thinks is “worth living”. The Durable Power of Attorney articulates who the patient would want to make decisions if the patient were unable to decide. So yes again, it should be a trusted person who will carry out the patients wishes. We should all have Advance Directives. That is. a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Do Not Resuscitate Order is a verry different matter intended for some one with serious disease and/or near the end of life.

There isn’t a really good answer to this issue. But my point, in the panel discussion and here is not that a person should not have a Living Will at all, but that he should not pass it around to strangers. He should give it to a relative or relatives in whom he has implicit trust and share the same faith he does.

Wearing a DNR bracelet is putting your life in the hands of strangers, some of whom might just decide your life isn’t worth living when you, yourself, might think differently if you had the opportunity to opine.

And resuscitation can happen to people who do recover as well as to those who don’t.

A durable power of attorney is an altogether different thing, and (at least in my state) does NOT give another the power to decide whether life-saving treatments should be given or withheld. The law in my state is that only the individual can decide that and, if unable to state, might have done so previously in a Living Will.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’ve obviously never suffered a long-term depressive illness. You make it sound like treatment is as easy as popping an aspirin for a headache.

A little off topic here, but a shrink once explained to me, in the case of a relative who ultimately did recover from a brain-chemistry-type depression, that simply providing the right meds doesn’t fix everything. Typically, he said, the person who has gone through years of depression develops coping mechanisms that have to be undone.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

For another person, that sounds do-able. But when I apply it to myself, I am scared to death.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

A little off topic here, but a shrink once explained to me, in the case of a relative who ultimately did recover from a brain-chemistry-type depression, that simply providing the right meds doesn’t fix everything. Typically, he said, the person who has gone through years of depression develops coping mechanisms that have to be undone.

True dat.

But some people simply can’t be “cured.” They can’t be helped because they cannot be convinced about another way of thinking.

I, for one, do not want to be resuscitated if I encounter a life-threatening condition, even if the probability of a recovery is high. I’m content to just let nature take its course.