DNR
 

Aklim:
If an ORIGINAL signed DNR is present, the EMT has no choice and no decisons to make. Allowable procedures may vary from state to state but generally do not allow rescusitative measures but do allow comfort measures such a giving oxygen.

In my state (Virginia) a proper bracelet is also acceptable. Copies of a DNR are not acceptable. A notice of DNR on file at the EMS agency is also not acceptable but only serves as notice to look for the original when arriving on-scene. BTW, a tattoo is a joke and not acceptable.

Whose life is it?

Great scene in "Kinpin" Woody harrelson walks out of his apt. two old guys sitting in lawn chairs on the sidewalk they look to be at least in their 80s one with a oxygen tank. Harrelson walks past and asks "how's life?"

one old guy just says "taking forever"

I may be old, but I suspect that some of my posts was deleted in this thread. Am I mistaken? :confused:

Certainly. Take for instance a living fetus. Or a severely retarded person. In the first instance we generally allow the mother-to-be make that decision. In the second, it varies from instance to instance.

Time for your Namenda and Aricept.

In the first case, it is the host of the tissue that makes the decision. After all, it IS her body that is hosting the tissue. In the second case, isn't it the POA that decides that?

That's a familiar answer. Resolve that with Kerry's suggestion that the living should make his own decision.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It depends on what your definition of "living" is. If I shoot you in the head and your large parts of your brain is destroyed but we keep your body on life support, did I kill you? Are you considered still "living"? Was Teri Schiavo "living"?

Of course you always run the risk of forgetting that intention when the time comes to do something about it.

My MIL has Alzheimer's, a very cruel and lengthy disease especially if the body is still fit and healthy.

Okay, let's go with your definition.

When is a person not living?

Kinda hard to explain but one of the systems I use is basically what the ER docs use to declare the person alive or dead. That the cells are alive is one thing. However living cells doesn't mean the organism is really alive.

Yep, that's the nub of the problem right there.

What is life? I mean, a tomato plant lives. And it may even have a good life, for a tomato ... from a tomato's perspective. Same with a shark, a botanist or a philosopher.

Also, we usually don't frame the argument using life alone. Usually we use the term, "quality of life." Is Paris Hilton's "quality of life" better than a starving Haitian dying of cholera? Most of us would probably say, "yes."

Does that mean we should put the Haitian to death?

I would say that the Haitian should be allowed to die if it is what he wishes. If he/she is sentient, why should they NOT be allowed to use their discretion? OTOH, if you want to talk of retarded being, that might not be so which leaves it up to the POA designated to look out for his/her well-being.

Okay, I think we're in agreement here so far, except possibly on the extremes of gestation and mental capacity. In both cases, sentience is probably ultimately the issue. But let's take it in small steps.

What if that starving Haitian, dying of cholera, is insensate? In that case determining sentience is not possible.