[US] Nurse refuses to perform CPR

[prankstar]

Not only that but her daughter thought it was satisfactory? Wow. I'd be flipping a crap if I knew someone could have saved my mother's life but didn't. Jeez.

i would also be flipping out if someone refused cpr to a family member.
the daughter is probably about to receive an inheritance

[Kasierith]

i would also be flipping out if someone refused cpr to a family member.
the daughter is probably about to receive an inheritance

Would kind of be your own fault for putting her in a place with that policy and signing a DNR in the first place. In all legal purposes, you would be the one to refuse it.

[Waaldo]

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.

[Paladin885]

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)

[Magpai]

i would also be flipping out if someone refused cpr to a family member.

If you would sign a DNR and then "be flipping out" when a nurse abided by it then you lack the competency to sign such an agreement, and to judge those who are involved in one.

[Ssith]

Jeeze....imagine that. You'd rather let someone die than break the rules.

you break those rules in a medical facility, and your job's forfeit, and you're LUCKY if you're not thrown in jail for assault because of it. my money's on a DNR, but the 911 op was uninformed of that fact. then some stupid publicist git got ahold of it and so continues the 24-hour news cycle.

[Deleted]

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.

[Kasierith]

Well this is interesting, 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 morally it seems like if someone does not have a DNR, the default should be to give them CPR.

That's nice. When it is an official and not a newspaper that relays this, I'll care. Or when an official denies that there was an equivalent legal document signed due to the policy of the home.

[Deleted]

That's nice. When it is an official and not a newspaper that relays this, I'll care. Or when an official denies that there was an equivalent legal document signed due to the policy of the home.

Pretty sure it's illegal for a newspaper to flat-out lie. And that information is better than just guessing if she had a DNR or not.

[Kasierith]

Pretty sure it's illegal for a newspaper to flat-out lie. And that information is better than just guessing if she had a DNR or not.

The newspaper doesn't have to lie; the newspaper only has to report on incomplete information.

If there was not a DNR or equivalent legal form, the nurse/home will be prosecuted over it. Simple as that. Does anyone have an article that mentions this process happening?

[Elegiac]

Pretty sure it's illegal for a newspaper to flat-out lie. And that information is better than just guessing if she had a DNR or not.

No, it's not. Even if it's not conscious lying, it's most likely misinformation that they are spreading.

The only ones caring about this situation are the media. Neither the daughter nor the nursing home seem to be bothered.

[Exeris]

Then do everyone a favour and shut your mouth. CPR is not a magical guaranteed life saver. There's every possibility that had the nurse performed CPR, the woman would still have died before the ambulance arrived.

Statistically it fails more than it succeeds, however obviously if you don't try, it certainly won't work.

You missed the word "could".

[Kasierith]

You missed the word "could".

Oh? Where exactly should the word "could" have been added?

[Thetruth1400]

Jeeze....imagine that. You'd rather let someone die than break the rules.

No offense, but there are plenty of factors to consider here, but mainly company policy.

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.

[Elegiac]

Oh? Where exactly should the word "could" have been added?

"Could still have died before the ambulance arrived."

Whatever. People can be medically ignorant if they want.

[Exeris]

Oh? Where exactly should the word "could" have been added?

Read what he quoted.

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." ?

[DEATHETERNAL]

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.

[Twotonsteak]

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 ----------

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.

It sounds to me like we have a lot of bleeding-hearts trying to impose their own sense of morality here. Logic would dictate, as you and I have both pointed out, that the woman and her family knew about the policy. Logic would also dictate that, as the daughter (a nurse herself) "was happy with the care," we should not be involved, and that this is a non-issue.

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.

[Clampz]

This seems pretty accurate, really; CPR is really only effective in the case of cardiac arrest, which from the sounds of the article wasn't the case.

Ultimately, this is a scenario in which I blame movies for an overly optimistic view of how CPR works and when it's appropriate. Kind of like the whole concept of "shooting to wound."

"Used alone, CPR will result in few complete recoveries, and those who do survive often develop serious complications. Estimates vary, but many organizations stress that CPR does not "bring anyone back," it simply preserves the body for defibrillation and advanced life support. ...On average, only 5–10% of people who receive CPR survive. The purpose of CPR is not to "start" the heart, but rather to circulate oxygenated blood, and keep the brain alive until advanced care (especially defibrillation) can be initiated. ...Common complications due to CPR include rib fractures, sternal fractures, bleeding in the anterior mediastinum, heart contusion, hemopericardium, upper airway complications, damage to the abdominal viscus - lacerations of the liver and spleen, fat emboli, pulmonary complications - pneumothorax, hemothorax, lung contusions. ...The type and frequency of injury can be affected by factors such as gender and age. For instance, women have a higher risk of sternal fractures than men, and risk for rib fractures increases significantly with age."

I think this comment should be repeatedly quoted until all of these bleeding hearts get it.

---------- Post added 2013-03-04 at 12:45 AM ----------

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 ----------



It sounds to me like we have a lot of bleeding-hearts trying to impose their own sense of morality here. Logic would dictate, as you and I have both pointed out, that the woman and her family knew about the policy. Logic would also dictate that, as the daughter (a nurse herself) "was happy with the care," we should not be involved, and that this is a non-issue.

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.

Also, this.

[Deleted]

The only ones caring about this situation are the media. Neither the daughter nor the nursing home seem to be bothered.

In this situation, neither the daughter or the nursing home was bothered. However, it may indicate that policies need to be re-evaluated. Looking at the comments on the article I linked, it looks like there a few RN's and senior living employees upset with the policy. I'd mostly agree with a nursing assistant's comment, "What the hell is the point of someone being in a facility if they're not going to get medical care?"

In this situation maybe no one cared, but it could still be a catalyst to review the policies.