Might be worth checking if that’s the case everywhere, because where I live that is not the case. Regardless of the patients wishs the medical staff will decide if they are going to resus or not. I have seen it myself - DNR - or NFR - on patients charts, and this was most clearly NOT the wish of the family or patient, but the medics, knowing the likelyhood of survival, or the resulantant damage upon a further stroke, heart attack etc, took a clinical decision not to resusitate regardless. This decision is communicated to the family, with great empathy, but the familys view changes nothing., but the patient or legal guardian have final say. .
A priest who was a friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was given six months to live with treatment and four months at the most without. He chose to not to be treated. No extra ordinary means of treatment are required for a terminal illness. What would resuscitation achieve? The best person do interview for your book would be the superior of an order. Such a decision would not be made without consultation with a superior.Are priests or nuns allowed to take out a DNR order if failing health becomes an issue? I’m researching a book, and it involves terminal illness and the religious life. many thanks!
Blessed be,
Polska
Might be worth checking if that’s the case where you are, because where I live that is most definately not the case. Regardless of the patients wishs the medical staff will decide if they are going to resus or not. I have seen it myself - DNR - or NFR - on patients charts, and this was most clearly NOT the wish of the family or patient, but the medics, knowing the likelyhood of survival, or the resulantant damage upon a further stroke, heart attack etc, took a clinical decision not to resusitate regardless. This decision is communicated to the family, with great empathy, but the familys view changes nothing.
Two years ago I was involved with the admission of someone I was looking after; the hospital staff were fantastic, but two days later, following deterioration, I got a call to go to the hospital, and it was explained to me that they make the guy comfortable, manage his pain etc, but they would not resusitate him; myslef and his aunt had no say in the matter. A clinical decision had been made and that was that. 3 days later he passed away.
Great topic and responses so far!Are priests or nuns allowed to take out a DNR order if failing health becomes an issue? I’m researching a book, and it involves terminal illness and the religious life. many thanks!
Blessed be,
Polska
DNR is a medical decision made on clinical grounds. If someone is old and frail, and suffering a condition that will almost certainly lead to their eventual and painful death anyway, not resucitating is the medically appropriate thing to do. There is a Church document on this (it was referenced in a recent thread on here about providing food and hydration for ‘vegetative’ patients) that says that invasive treatment is not always morally appropriate. We have a duty of care to living people, but that duty also extends to a good death in the time God decides, which means no to euthanasia, but also no to excessive treatment to prolong the dying process.Might be worth checking if that’s the case everywhere, because where I live that is not the case. Regardless of the patients wishs the medical staff will decide if they are going to resus or not. I have seen it myself - DNR - or NFR - on patients charts, and this was most clearly NOT the wish of the family or patient, but the medics, knowing the likelyhood of survival, or the resulantant damage upon a further stroke, heart attack etc, took a clinical decision not to resusitate regardless. This decision is communicated to the family, with great empathy, but the familys view changes nothing.
Two years ago I was involved with the admission of someone I was looking after; the hospital staff were fantastic, but two days later, following deterioration, I got a call to go to the hospital, and it was explained to me that they make the guy comfortable, manage his pain etc, but they would not resusitate him; myslef and his aunt had no say in the matter. A clinical decision had been made and that was that. 3 days later he passed away.
Correct - that’s what I said. But I also found it a bit scarey talking to a guy who’s an emergency medic and told me a story about one night when he was part of the crash team, they got two simultaneous calls about 3am, he took the details while running with the team, and based on what was said over the phone, decided to go left instead of right at the end of the corridor. The guy they treated lived, made a full recovery, the guy they left, didnt.DNR is a medical decision made on clinical grounds. If someone is old and frail, and suffering a condition that will almost certainly lead to their eventual and painful death anyway, not resucitating is the medically appropriate thing to do. .
This is one of the difficult decisions made by EMTs. Triage was developed as a way to sort war casualties. The idea was to save as many people as possible in as short of an amount of time as possible. There is specific criteria that is followed; the walking wounded can wait while the most critical are allowed to die. I realize this is taking the discussion slightly off topic. It is the reason I support a constitutional amendment in which “every reasonable effort” is made to “protect the life and dignity of the individual from the moment of conception.”Correct - that’s what I said. But I also found it a bit scarey talking to a guy who’s an emergency medic and told me a story about one night when he was part of the crash team, they got two simultaneous calls about 3am, he took the details while running with the team, and based on what was said over the phone, decided to go left instead of right at the end of the corridor. The guy they treated lived, made a full recovery, the guy they left, didnt.
I’d hate to have that level of life or death responsibility.