SIGN UP

Do Not Resuscitate?

Avatar Image
mushroom25 | 16:13 Thu 18th Mar 2021 | News
15 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-56432879

not sure about this - do the current exceptional circumstances justify examples of summary triage?

Answers

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's very hard to tell from there. It hasn't been DNR for many many years, but the more accurate DNACPR.
Would CPR have saved her?
Surely if you are of sound mind and have a DNR order in place it has nothing to do with your Family. If I had a DNR order, had an accident and was resuscitated in spite of the DNR and became quadriplegic, I would be more than miffed with my family!
This lady had 'learning difficulties', which suggests she may not have been of sound mind.
APG, the case in point wasn't of sound mind 'Sonia Deleon, who had learning disabilities and schizophrenia'.
That doesn't necessarily mean not of sound mind- and if she knew what she was agreeing to, that's fine.
But, what did she actually die of? The only issue here, is that they decided against CPR. Would that have actually saved her? As it seems she died of covid, so it looks invalid anyway.
She died of a heart attack.
A heart attack.... so CPR wasn't needed anyway. The BBC is horrendous.
'The hospital claimed a DNR which referenced Ms Deleon's learning disabilities had been incorrectly filled in and another order which did not note them was used instead.'

Very odd.
I have to say I thought after the initial terrible results they went around the admissions and said to 80 y and above
that ventilation was NOT a suitable nor working proposition

we are not doing it because it doesnt work
always seemed to me to be straightforward and sensible

I think there are multiple things going on here. Number one is that there was that slightly odd letter sent by one group of GP's asking care homes to reassess DNR decisions for some of their patients.
Number two is that when the pandemic was at its height, it may be that some staff did not consult relatives when they should have for whatever reason.
It is (and has always been the case) that DNR decisions are made by a doctor. Where the patient or their representative does want a DNAR decision recorded, its not usually an issue, its where the doctor thinks it should be recorded and the patient, but more usually relative, does not that the fun and games starts. God knows I hold no brief for doctors, I have dealt with enough of them that I wouldn't trust with somebody else's rubber duck, but I think in this case there is likely to be an element of the rage of grief here "The doctor shouldn't have let my mum/dad/relative die."

So basically more detail needed before we judge
// so CPR wasn't needed anyway. The BBC is horrendous.//
no
the fluffy Beeb hacks can understand "the doctors killed my mother and we didnt sign narfin!"

where as their lack of understanding nay sheer ignorance of replication of mRNA viruses - or the lack of reverse transcriptase means DNA cannot changed - - is profound. They show it on a daily basis

[I have a fantasy of a fluffy hack sqawking " I doan wanna do covid today because PP will write an insulting email to the editor, saying I would be better off hugging a tree!"] I dream on
I think so as well... a DNACPR is very specific, in certain circumstances and isn't legally binding either..it does not mean no further care. I think the family are naturally upset, but the anger is misplaced.
PP, if they are using outdated phrases from decades ago, and not explaining anything. It's not a report, more a weird rant.
yes, sorry i used DNR for speed of typing
I know, woof- but the BBC should be accurate.

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Do Not Resuscitate?

Answer Question >>