Perfoming CPR on Terminally Ill Patients

In fact, according to a recent poll almost 42% of surveyed supported euthanasia and 37% opposed (Fig 1). A lot of controversy surrounding this issue stems from the fact that euthanasia has been analyzed not only from juridical perspective, whether or not it should be legal, but also from various medical, social, philosophical, religious points of view. The topic seems to be extremely relevant not only because it is related to the basic principles of society regarding life and death, but also it affects every person, especially who suffers from a terminal illness. This study tries to indicate possible solutions for some questions related to euthanasia in order to show that in many cases euthanasia can be avoided by adequate treatment and that proper and clearly legislation is necessary to protect patients. For the purpose of this paper, euthanasia can be defined as “conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease or condition” (Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, Hodgson, & McQuoid-Mason, 2014, p. 259). Even though the issue of proper definition of euthanasia is still debatable, the question of classification of euthanasia seems to be less problematic. In fact, many scholars agree that euthanasia may be classified as voluntary (because of the will), non-voluntary (without specific will), involuntary (against the will) and divided according to active (use of lethal substances) and passive options (termination of treatment). Euthanasia differs also from assisted suicide. The former means to help someone to die, the latter means to help a person kill him or

Do Not Resuscitate, "is a written physician's order that prevents the healthcare learn from initialing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event that a patient's heart stops" (Earp, French, & Gilkey, 2008, p. 348). It had all started within the year of 1960, Kouwenhoven and his colleagues, were the first to announce closed chest cardiac massage as an efficient way of resuscitating victims when undergoing a cardiac arrest (Yuen, Reid, & Fetters, 2011, p. 791). As a patient advocate, my goal is to be able to provide the upmost care to my patients. DNR policy is relatively what patients need to be aware of because it is their only chance of getting any wishes to be followed through towards the end. Yuen (2011) explains how with DNR there

ed. For the immense number of ill patients, the solution to their suffering is predominately quality sedative care, of which I ardently encourage. Though there are ill patients who seek sedative care, there is a significant amount of terminally ill patients for whom palliative care is not the solution and who suffer tremendously until they die. These are the type of patients who wish to end their suffering by making the decision to end their lives with the assistance of doctors. This also allows them to end their lives with dignity, and place of their choice. The only way to prevent suffering of this amount is to revise the law so patients are allowed to lawfully receive assistance to peacefully pass away.

A “do not resuscitate” order is a complex, ethical and moral dilemma. From a medical personnel point of view, when his/her patient is put into a situation where death is highly likely or already reached, they will do whatever is necessary to make you survive in that moment. But that doesn’t mean that you will continue to survive long term. Sometimes when a doctor “saves” you in that instance its only for an allotted time, maybe even a couple of hours, sometimes they break your ribs in order to make sure you survive a couple of more

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Essentially one of the most controversial and difficult healthcare decisions for the healthcare professional, patient or family member to make or support is withholding and/or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies. This could possibly be due to the fact that at times societal views group assisted suicide and withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, as one and the same. However, they are not, a client can refuse life-sustaining treatment and still receive palliative care. Furthermore, when providers support the decisions of these patients it is not their intention of cause death but to respect the patient's autonomy. The purpose of this assignment is to analyze different opinions on end-of-life (EOL) issues in nursing, specifically,

The Universal Determination of Death Act provides a comprehensive base for determining death in all situations. In 1979, the American Medical Association created the Model Determination of Death statute due to modern advances in lifesaving technology. A person may be artificially supported for respiration and circulation after all brain functions come to an end. The medical profession, has developed techniques for determining loss of brain functions while cardiorespiratory support is administered. The definition of death can’t assure recognition of these techniques, and can be demonstrated by the absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions.

The ANA published a Position Statement; Nursing Care and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Allow Natural Death (AND) Decisions, this states that from 1992 and 2005 survival of elderly patients that received CPR had the same

Nobody can escape death. It is inevitable. It can arrive when one is old and fragile, content with the life they have lived, or it can jump out from around a corner when one is on their way home from celebrating their twenty-first birthday. It has no set schedule or due date for those to plan around. Years ago, when medical interventions where still fictional, death carried out its own course of action however it desired. As medicine has progressed, many life-saving treatments have been developed as well as life-ending interventions. End-of-life decisions generate many ethical issues that policymakers, medical professionals, and patients and family members have never encountered before. One such question is whether “palliative sedation” is

RJ Walker then makes a statement that most will not understand unless you’re in the Medical profession. He said “But we knew from the beginning this blue baby boy had been dead for who knows how long.” Most people would then ask, if he knew the child was dead then why start CPR. Why do anything other than call the police to investigate this family and why their child is no longer alive. This ties into his struggle with Deceit. You see, in the EMS field it is better to grab the baby and start CPR, and head towards the hospital and do something (CPR) then to do nothing. It is a persona that you give to the family that you tried to do everything possible to save their child. This tends to show the family that you tried hard to save their child,

A Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order is a document written by a physician that expresses the patient’s, or their surrogate decision-maker’s, wishes on what should occur if the patient experiences cardio and/or respiratory arrest (Braddock and Clark, 2014). While often confused with advanced directives, a DNR is traditionally only in effect if and when a patient requires cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In practice, most hospitals and professional medical organizations have policies in place, along with guidelines established by state law, to determine when establishing a DNR is medically appropriate.

Over recent years, there has been developments in the debate surrounding the end of life decisions such as euthanasia and assisted suicide. The approach taken by the law is that we should protect human lives and this is supported by a number of different countries that have also prohibited such end of life decisions. Many people wish to die in a dignified manner and believe that the only way they can do this is to take control over how and when they pass and to do so they would wish to use the life-shortening acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

A Do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a legal document written by a licensed physician, which is developed in consultation with the patient, surrogate decision maker, and attending physician. This document indicates whether the patient will receive resuscitative care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or advanced medical directives, in the setting of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. A DNR can also be referred as a no code when identifying a patient’s resuscitation status. If a patient has an existing DNR it allows the resuscitation team, taking care of the patient, to either withhold or stop any resuscitation measures, and therefore respect the patient’s wishes. Historically, DNR orders did not become active in the care of patients until 1974, when it was identified that patients who received CPR, and survived, had significant morbidities (Braddock & Derbenwick-Clark, 2014). Braddock and Derbenwick-Clark further noted, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended that physicians, in consultation with the patient, family, and or surrogate, place on the patients chart when CPR was not indicated. This documentation is now what we refer to as the DNR order and has become the standard to allow autonomous respect for patients, and their families, to make informed medical decisions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the legal aspects, ethical issues, and the application surrounding the DNR order.

According to the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), over 5.7 million patients are admitted annually to the intensive care unit (SCCM, n.d. ). Despite these high numbers, clinicians continue to debate about family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). On the mist of these crisis, family members may not want to abandon their loved ones. Some would argue that families have a right to choose and ease their anxiety. Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) comes with multiple advantages. One of the advantage of FPDR is, giving the family an opportunity to morally support their loved ones (Leske, McAndrew, & Brazel, 2013). Another benefit of FPDR is being exposed of the resuscitation process, which may help family member process their loss post-death. Despite these advantages the controversies include, the fear of the invasive procedure traumatizing families. (Leske et al., 2013).

One day, there was a boy carried his father to our hospital. His father was badly injured by an elephant. I carried the boy’s father to the bed and Dr. Schweitzer came, “What in the world is going on?” he asked, “The patient is 43 years old got attacked by an elephant, looks like it stomped on his abdomen causing severe spleen rupture, slightly of liver damaged, and heavy bleeding in the abdominal area” I replied. While checking the patient’s condition Schweitzer concluded, “You’re right! Let’s get him to the operating room, he needs surgery”. During the surgery, due to the heavy bleeding from performing hemi-splenectomy the patient was going under cardiac arrest. Then, I checked his pulse, “I can’t feel his pulse rate, if he continues to bleed his heart will stop beating! I’m going to perform CPR” “What in the world is CPR?” Schweitzer asked. I was surprised by the question, but I came to realized that CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation) was not developed until 1960, “There’s no time, I will explain it to you later”, “1, 2, 3… again 1, 2, 3”. Suddenly, his heart start to beat again and Schweitzer was able to control the bleeding and fixed the damaged liver, “I can feel his pulse rate now! Thank god he’s alive”. The room then became silent, but it was a silence of relief; a silence of joy when someone’s life is saved. After the surgery, I went to the back and had a little rest then Schweitzer came and joined me he asked, “How do you