DNRs

  • Thread starter Thread starter dje101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dje101

Guest
What is the general view of DNRs?

Is it morally wrong to have a DNR?
 
DNR stands for do not resuscitate. Typically I don’t think there is any moral issue with these. While I’ve never read any official statements about them I would think it almost impossible for them to be immoral. Not “bringing one back to life” who had “died” is not the same thing as withholding treatment which leads to death.
 
Do Not re·sus·ci·tate \ri-ˈsə-sə-ˌtāt
transitive verb
: to revive from apparent death or from unconsciousness; also : revitalize
intransitive verb
: come to, revive
Other forms: re·sus·ci·tat·ed; re·sus·ci·tat·ing
re·sus·ci·ta·tion \ri-ˌsə-sə-ˈtā-shən, ˌrē-\ noun
re·sus·ci·ta·tive \ri-ˈsə-sə-ˌtā-tiv\ adjective
Examples
The patient stopped breathing but doctors were able to resuscitate him.
she hopes to resuscitate the currently defunct charity organization
Origin: Latin resuscitatus, past participle of resuscitare to reawaken, from re- + suscitare to rouse, from sub-, sus- up + citare to put in motion, stir — more at sub-, cite.
First use: 1532
Synonyms: freshen, recharge, recreate, refresh, refreshen, regenerate, rejuvenate, repair, restore, renew, revitalize, revive, revivify:eek:
 
I’ve just wondered.

I guess the question should be, how far are we expected to go to keep ourselves alive when our bodies seem to be dying?
 
dje101 said:
I’ve just wondered.

I guess the question should be, how far are we expected to go to keep ourselves alive when our bodies seem to be dying?
Click to expand...
I work in health, and from my experience a lot of people have no idea what hospital based resuss involves, its invasive, violent and really nasty, and even if we get a person back, sometimes it woudl have been kinder to have let them go. The DNRs we deal with are often on sick, elderly individuals with co-morbidities as long as your arm. A DNR isn’t about “giving up” or “deminishing their value”, its about recognising there are some conditions that if a person arrests that trying to bring them back would do more harm then good. There was a pt recently who was in the late 90s, had heart disease, diabetes, CORD, alzheimers and a whole host of other problems but their family refused a DNR, so when they did crash, we worked on them for two hours waiting for the enduring power of attonry to arrive, and it was terrible. The pt of course died, and chances are they never “came back” during the resuss but it was a violent thing to do to their body.

DNRs simply acknowledge that sometimes life ends and that it is normal to allow the person to go.

Of course, its a broad topic, and the elderly and those with rather nasty medical conditions should consider DNRS if that’s what they want, and as long as they know what a resuss involves, good for them. But it shouldn’t be treated like all doctors and nurses are trying to top people.

Is it moral? I’d say its morally neutral.
 
vera_dicere said:
I work in health, and from my experience a lot of people have no idea what hospital based resuss involves, its invasive, violent and really nasty, and even if we get a person back, sometimes it woudl have been kinder to have let them go. The DNRs we deal with are often on sick, elderly individuals with co-morbidities as long as your arm. A DNR isn’t about “giving up” or “deminishing their value”, its about recognising there are some conditions that if a person arrests that trying to bring them back would do more harm then good. There was a pt recently who was in the late 90s, had heart disease, diabetes, CORD, alzheimers and a whole host of other problems but their family refused a DNR, so when they did crash, we worked on them for two hours waiting for the enduring power of attonry to arrive, and it was terrible. The pt of course died, and chances are they never “came back” during the resuss but it was a violent thing to do to their body.

DNRs simply acknowledge that sometimes life ends and that it is normal to allow the person to go.

Of course, its a broad topic, and the elderly and those with rather nasty medical conditions should consider DNRS if that’s what they want, and as long as they know what a resuss involves, good for them. But it shouldn’t be treated like all doctors and nurses are trying to top people.

Is it moral? I’d say its morally neutral.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:Exactly!
 
After the whole Terri Schiavo thing, I’m not sure how the RCC can be for them in any way.
 
vera_dicere said:
I work in health, and from my experience a lot of people have no idea what hospital based resuss involves, its invasive, violent and really nasty, and even if we get a person back, sometimes it woudl have been kinder to have let them go. The DNRs we deal with are often on sick, elderly individuals with co-morbidities as long as your arm. A DNR isn’t about “giving up” or “deminishing their value”, its about recognising there are some conditions that if a person arrests that trying to bring them back would do more harm then good. There was a pt recently who was in the late 90s, had heart disease, diabetes, CORD, alzheimers and a whole host of other problems but their family refused a DNR, so when they did crash, we worked on them for two hours waiting for the enduring power of attonry to arrive, and it was terrible. The pt of course died, and chances are they never “came back” during the resuss but it was a violent thing to do to their body.

DNRs simply acknowledge that sometimes life ends and that it is normal to allow the person to go.

Of course, its a broad topic, and the elderly and those with rather nasty medical conditions should consider DNRS if that’s what they want, and as long as they know what a resuss involves, good for them. But it shouldn’t be treated like all doctors and nurses are trying to top people.

Is it moral? I’d say its morally neutral.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your excellent answer. I just got into the EMS field and have had the thought of a possible call where someone might be crashing and they have a DNR. My instructors told me about a couple of calls they had where they were basically sitting there while this pt died because they had a DNR, and they were just required to sit there, make them comfortable, and wait for the coroner. It’s something that just stuck in my head and I didn’t know how to feel about it. Thanks again.
 
Muze said:
After the whole Terri Schiavo thing, I’m not sure how the RCC can be for them in any way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like the previous poster said, this had nothing to do with a DNR. If I remember correctly, they didn’t just let her go because of all the problems she had. They took the feeding tube out, resulting in her starving to death. Two different scenarios. With Terri Schiavo, the husband basically had her killed.
 
Having a loved one die recently, from a terminal illness; it is my opinion that many times DNR orders are almost morally imperative. The hospice explained it to our family this way: if for any reason an EMT gets called to your house, if there is no DNR; they are required by law to try to resuscitate. Then the description of resuscitation was given, and the images of how much additional suffering that would cause to someone who is already in a great deal of pain; who has less than a couple of weeks to live.

Also, it is not uncommon for a family friend or member, who is not involved as closely in all of the hospice care, to mistakenly call 911 for a terminally ill person. This apparently happens a lot. And I can see how, as lots of people may be visiting, lots of stress on the family, not everyone thinking quite straight.

I consider them important. I can see absolutely no problem with them in these instances.

I also have a grandmother who was in a nursing home and a DNR was not signed. She started dying,naturally at a very old age, and was sent by ambulance to the hospitial. Not a good thing.
 
tafan,

Thanks for your stories. I feel the same way about the subject; that at some point they almost seem to become a necessity.

My biggest problem was that I didn’t know where the moral line was drawn between when we should fight for our life and when we should let the end come.
 
It’s not always clear where that line is. We do our best to prayerfully consider our state and stake in such decisions and learn the best we can about what the Church teaches about the sanctity of life.
 
dje101 said:
tafan,

Thanks for your stories. I feel the same way about the subject; that at some point they almost seem to become a necessity.

My biggest problem was that I didn’t know where the moral line was drawn between when we should fight for our life and when we should let the end come.
Click to expand...
It is my belief that it should be rather simple common sense. In this day and age, that is more difficult, but it seems like it should be. We always have to provide comfort, food, and water. Now, when the body starts shutting down, it will stop digesting, and so forcing food can make for greater pain. But any competent nurse can tell when this is happening. Actually, any caregiver will be able to, if they had been feeding them before.

My other grandmother was on a feeding tube, and my mom was taking care of her (she is an RN). Before she died, her stomach slowly stopped processing the food. It became effident because the less and less food from the feeding tube could be easily inserted into her stomach.

The other family member, never on a feeding tube, ate less and less, etc.

As to fighting for life, that is a personal decision; if one is terminally ill, one does not have to fight to prolong life (through continual cancer treatments for example), but one may. And it is typically very evident when resusitation shoud not occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top