People need to understand what protocol means. If there is protocol, you follow it till every little fucking letter. Because if you break it, not only will you get sued for all the money you own, and not only will you lose your job, but you will lose your license. meaning you will NEVER be able to work in the medical field again. You think saving some random 80+ year old woman is worth this nurses lively hood? Not in this fucked up sue happy country.
They have that rule for lawsuit reasons.
If they fail to do it correctly then several things can happen that can turn for the worst:
- They could fail to do it properly and cause the victim to die... if done correctly they "might" have lived, so now it's their fault.
- They could fail at it in a different way, but this time it involves too much pressure on the chest causing broken bones.... this can actually kill the victim (you're still technically "alive" even after you stop breathing because you're not brain dead yet)
Well apparently the patient did NOT have a DNR order. See bottom of following link: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ater-died.html
It's hard to know what she would have wanted, but it seems like if someone does not have a DNR, the default should be to give them CPR.
Did you ever think that the reason the policy exists is because this is a senior citizens nursing home? In other words, it's where people go to die. The creator of this policy may have created it so people don't have to suffer needlessly. Instead of dragging out their life hooked up to a machine, this policy allows time for the person to pass, ending the suffering they're in to be there in the first place. You might not like it, but the people that are in those facilities are there because they can no longer function on a day to day basis.
Secondly, you're wanting this person to put their job on the line, all because it's the right thing to do. It's also the right thing to do to give starving people food, but you don't see grocery store workers handing out food to the hungry. You don't see companies giving out free coats to the homeless because they have to make money. You seem to think this person that did what the policy said was wrong in some way. By "doing the right thing" in your eyes, that person would have lost their job and probably their livelihood, all because you think it's the right thing to do.
Personally, having experienced several family members suffering at the hands of doctors, I say right on the company for this policy. It's better to let people pass, then to make them suffer hooked up to a machine keeping them alive when they're in such a sad state. If only assisted suicide were legal, we'd have so many more options for people to keep their dignity and go out on their terms instead of forced by others to live a life filled with pain and struggle.
edit:I wasn't trying to correct what he was typing, but it looked like he didn't understand the person he quoted.
Or maybe I'm the one that doesn't understand why he said, "Then do everyone a favour and shut your mouth. CPR is not a magical guaranteed life saver." ?
Last edited by Exeris; 2013-03-04 at 05:39 AM.
If she had wanted CPR, she would not have signed papers stating that she agreed to the policy of not being given CPR. There really is nothing more to this case unless people are advocating for the totalitarian route of forced care.
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.
I just want to make sure I understand this situation.
1. The nurse followed procedure.
2. The Nursing Home is not upset.
3. The family of the deceased is not upset. (Note: The daughter is also a nurse and might have a bit more insight into the circumstances then, say, most of the people posting here.)
4. The police apparently are not upset.
So, just to be clear, no one of any importance is actually upset. And yet we have over 14 pages of arguments about morality and legality. All of which stem from a brief story that, in all likely hood, lacked the full details.
Just so I'm clear that the bulk of this thread amounts to people trying to impose their own sense of "right and wrong" based off of partial information.
---------- Post added 2013-03-04 at 12:44 AM ----------
But here we are. Listening to a bunch of people crying about how more wasn't done in an apparent attempt to over-rule the wishes of the deceased and her family.
Last edited by Twotonsteak; 2013-03-04 at 05:44 AM.