I guess if it was written in Comic Sans the hospital wouldn’t respect it.
1 Like
He should have used the only type that conveys the seriosity of the senitment
2 Likes
6 Likes
Having someone you love tearfully beg you to kill them, while professionally ensmiled hospital workers brightly assure you that they haven’t violated their wishes because, well, technically there was some loophole, is not an experience I would wish on anyone.
1 Like
Oh, yeah.
That’s how they said it on the radio.
Plus, it sounds cooler and more enigmatic.
1 Like
Whenever I kill someone I want them to stay dead, this is when my skills as a tattooist really come in handy.
2 Likes
yeah but you could say you believed it as a plausible defense right?
Technically does matter. His tattoo did not say “comfort measures only” or “no ICU transfer” (which are close to universal standard on living will paperwork in the US). That he didn’t also tattoo one of these other orders could be used to argue that he was implying he wanted other medical interventions. Neither you nor I have any way to infer his wishes about fluid resuscitation, pressors, antibiotics, or BiPAP - he was never conscious enough to express his wishes to EMS or hospital staff.
1 Like
Oh you heard that too? 
Thank you for providing this information, for other readers who might want to preserve some shred of dignity in their death.
I personally have had my fill of such “technicalities”.
You also don’t want to let people die when there’s a good chance they would have been totally fine with the intervention. The journal letter doesn’t say what the details of this patient’s formal DNR actually were, but it seems clear to me that a “do not resuscitate” chest tattoo is strong evidence of a preference against CPR, but at least weaker evidence of a preference against e.g. antibiotics or IV fluids.
Well also people might have DNRs for specific reasons. Like, if you know you have a terminal disease and would rather that you don’t live a few extra agonizing days in a hospital just because they can keep your body working for that long, I understand that. But what if you then have a totally unrelated problem like you accidentally hit your head? The simply “Do not resuscitate” is not really sufficient instructions.
I had a family member who had terminal cancer and was told he had about a year, then he died of a heart attack two weeks later. There was no DNR involved, but what if there had been? He could have had several more months of reasonable health to spend with his family had they been able to save him. I don’t think that’s what most people with DNRs are trying to avoid.
2 Likes
People with DNRs are ready.
Forcing them to continue when they’ve decided they are ready to die is cruel and extremely disrespectful.
Unfortunately, people who fear death often cannot accept that their fear is not shared. They can’t bring themselves to step the hell back and let nature take its course, they can’t stop playing God. This cruelty is a cause of much suffering.
1 Like
I disagree and I think this perspective is harmful in allowing patients to accept DNR status. I disagree that DNR and comfort measures only (CMO) status are equivalent.
Many of the patients that I see conflate DNR status with CMO status. Many of the patients that I care for have preferences in the grey zone between these two - for example, they would like to be hospitalized and treated for a life threatening but treatable urinary tract infection with fluids and antibiotics, but would not want to be transferred to the ICU and would not want CPR/intubation if they are dying.
The problem with reinforcing the idea of DNR is being ready to die and not wanting other interventions is that people who do want other interventions think they must maintain full-code status to get the interventions that they want. This causes enormous harm.
I’m not arguing with you about the technical jargon and paperwork of your profession, I am talking about being a compassionate human being.
“Do Not Resuscitate” is an unequivocal acceptance of mortality.
Both my father and my grandmother got UTIs that would have killed them, and after treatment they wept to find that they’d been brought back to continue suffering.
My father was resuscitated four times against his will. Eventually my mother and I managed to keep the damn vampires off him long enough to let him have his wish. He died in agony and confusion, rather than the simple and dignified death he wanted and could have had if his wishes had not been repeatedly overruled by people with exactly your attitude.
I sat with my aunt and grandmother while they purposefully starved themselves to death in the hospital, because it was the only way they could find to end their abject misery. It took weeks.
Inform your patients all you wish, and I applaud that, but don’t talk to me about enormous harm.
I do not think I can continue this conversation and retain my civility.
2 Likes
First, I am sorry that you and your family had those things happen. No one should have treatment against their will. And if the primary goal of treatment is comfort, then that should truly be the primary goal. I believe the point of my profession is to care for people in the way they want to be cared for.
Which means medical teams have to have a conversation with the patient about what they want because it is often nuanced and unpredictable. But I do think we, as a society, make it harder for patients and providers to engage in this conversation and to discuss intermediate care wishes when our public discourse makes it “all in or all out”. It is a false dichotomy which does cause harm. If you want “some of the things” but you think your options are “none of the things” or “all of the things” many people are going to choose “all of the things” and end up getting much more than they actually wanted.
1 Like
Note the bit at the end about the vote in the House of Lords.
There is a substantial history of the medical profession disapproving of voluntary euthanasia while simultaneously engaging in medical murder. It’s about power, not ethics.
2 Likes
Those who can and do profit financially by prolonging suffering cannot ethically decide that other people “actually wanted” their suffering prolonged.
And as you already noted, doctors did override this man’s clearly expressed wishes. Their actions suggest they didn’t really give a shit about him as a cognitive entity with values that conflicted with their own fear of death; their only question was whether they had legal justification for artificially supporting his meatsack in a state that would generate income for their institution.
All efforts at treating reversible causes of his decreased level of consciousness failed to produce a mental status adequate for discussing goals of care.
Apparently they did everything they could to resuscitate him before they even called in outside ethics consultants unimpaired by the arrogance the medical profession inculcates in practitioners.
After reviewing the patient’s case, the ethics consultants advised us to honor the patient’s do not resuscitate (DNR) tattoo. They suggested that it was most reasonable to infer that the tattoo expressed an authentic preference
The stereotypical God Complex of physicians does not justify disregarding the clearly expressed will of other human beings facing the end of their lives, any more than the pious mouthings of the Inquisition excused torture.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
