Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds good to me. When I was a young CCU nurse I swore I'd have DNR tattooed on my chest, as did my colleagues. Having the opportunity to actually "pound" a patient's chest and shock them into oblivion solidified my determination to avoid resuscitation.
There are a LOT of unappealing medical procedures that have become the "default" standard of care.
This one at least isn't expensive to do.
I think this misses the point. While the actual procedures of resussitation may be "unappealing", the result of it (continued life after all quality of life is gone) is what the subject of the news report is presumably trying to avoid.
The subject of the article stated that she did this to save money for the NHS (British government owned National Health Service). Consequently, we might question her cognitive ability. We might also wonder if this were, at least in part, an advertising message. BBC has the same benevolent owner as NHS.
It's not uncommon for elderly people to have heart attacks and resume normal lives. This isn't 1950; there has been progress in medecine. I've known two men in their early eighties who had heart attacks and were hiking with their dogs afterwards. I understand that anecdotal evidence proves little, but in these cases it proved a heart attack doesn't mean it's vegetable time.
Should people die when they reach a certain age? Is death preferable to a life below peak health? I don't think so; you'll find no sign on my chest showing a desire to die.
It's not uncommon for elderly people to have heart attacks and resume normal lives. This isn't 1950; there has been progress in medecine. I've known two men in their early eighties who had heart attacks and were hiking with their dogs afterwards. I understand that anecdotal evidence proves little, but in these cases it proved a heart attack doesn't mean it's vegetable time.
So, let's look at this from another angle. Yes, they could have had those heart attacks carry them away quickly, but now, they face a bigger chance of spending their last days bedridden and/or in a nursing home. Perhaps even with dementia.
Which would be worse? A sure death in their 80s, or a worse one later?
The question is whether people should be able to do (pretty much anything) on their own terms... or not.
Your terms appear to be different than the subject of the article and the other commenters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
