Posted on 12/31/2008 9:48:46 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
Unless your dad has been declared incompetent, he should have had the discussion with your dad and not you. Federal (Medicare) law requires the conversation in the hospital - and due to new Medicare law passed this summer, we now have to document similar conversations in our offices. (Remember all the privacy papers you had to sign a couple of years ago?)
Nevertheless, for cardiac arrests in the hospital, approximately 10% (JAMA, 2005 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/293/3/305 ) survive to discharge. With the new “Continuous” Cardiac Compression guidelines, the number is probably slightly better. In some studies, even out of hospital - the discharge to home rate can be as high as 20%, (http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2008-sct/4704.html )
The people in the hospital are sicker to begin with than the people who arrest out of hospital. An in-hospital arrest is a very good indicator that a lot of organs are not working well, even on maximum medical treatments.
It is reasonable to discuss the chances of recovery, the probability that a person will survive a heart attack or ever be able to come off the ventilator.
Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'
BTW, I love your tagline :)
Dame Warnock believes that the demented should either want to die or they should feel guilty. She obviously doesn’t understand “dementia.”
She is probably the inspiration for these two - who evidently were recorded as they conspired to let the man die and then to lie about what they found when they got there.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5420921.ece
“They are said to have discussed what to tell ambulance control and decided to say that Mr Baker was already dead when they got there.”
(I blogged on the Dame in September, http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2008/09/demented-should-want-to-die-or-feel.html )
(And I stole my tag line from the author of an editorial who said that the line described Pope Benedict.)
If it is not too late, I nominate your remarks for Post of the Year!
It almost seems that what I see is people wanting a system that will decide who gets care and who will not.
Big question: Who would decide?
Would liberals decide that anyone except older white males get priority?
Would conservatives decide that only citizens, and only those of a certain wealth standard would get care?
I know we need to set some ground rules before the whole system blows up in our faces, but it scares the crap out of me when I begin to think of the possibilities....
I have a disabled daughter. I am also one of the hard-working poor. If my daughter needed urgent care, I shudder to think that “someone” would decide that she wasn’t ‘worthy’ of care because of her condition.
I know there are some people in this world who are heartless bastards, and I pray that none of them are decision-makers for healthcare.
Read the book Who Really Cares. Your observation holds reliably across the country. Liberals are stingy with their time and money, conservatives much more generous. Conservatives reach into their own pockets and schedules to help the needy. Liberals reach into other peoples' pockets and tell them what to do to help the needy. It's an empirical fact.
Guess what. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders opined that a young Black drug addict should have priority for treatment over an old white guy with a bad heart.
You can look it up.
He wasn't.
he should have had the discussion with your dad and not you.
*shrug* Dad's 83, and was suffering a temporary ALC. The doc assumed that this was prima facie evidence that he's incompetent.
What the doc couldn't see was that the day before he was as articulate and sharper than 99% of the 30 year olds out there.
Ultimate result? A liter of normal saline and several glasses of liquids later, he's back. Simple dehydration.
Nevertheless, for cardiac arrests in the hospital, approximately 10% ... survive to discharge.
Sounds about right. I taught my students that only about 5% of the people they would do CPR on 'in the wild' would survive.
It is reasonable to discuss the chances of recovery, the probability that a person will survive a heart attack or ever be able to come off the ventilator.
Yeah. If we'd have had any actual discussion, that would have been reasonable. The doc seemed only interested in getting a DNR order.
Thanks!
Very familiar with those facts. Although I was ignorant to the current views. I thought they had learned their lesson. A couple of generations can reek havoc on our world. I forced myself to visit Dachau in 1984, quietly and tearfully trying to understand how man could do this to mankind.
*sigh* And today he spiked a fever. They’re sending him back to the hospital.
We are one of the few countries that see people as a resource. For most of our history, we have had a shortage of labor, so we didn’t, much, care where you came from. With human potential unlimited, and economic freedom, we had economic growth.
European societies were more rigid and closed, and slow growth with a zero sum thinking, such that other people meant them taking your stuff. At it’s core, Nazi economics, very socialist, was about takings.
This is what our government is/has introduced to a good percentage of Americans. Limited growth, rigid freedoms and takings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.