The question leads the reader to answer yes. especially if somebody so clearly labelled their wishes as to tattoo "DNR Do not resuscitate" over their heart. But what if you knew she had being admitted to hospital for overdoses on paroxetine and tramadol (anti-depressants) and had previously being admitted to A and E for deliberate self harm, including needing surgery to remove foreign bodies from her abdominal wall. After treatment for the drug overdose she was discharged with a community psychiatric follow-up.
Shortly after her discharge she poured lighter fluid over herself and set herself alight. she suffered 15% burns and was immediately readmitted to hospital. It was whilst in the burns unit the surgical team found the tattoo. They were confused as no advance directive was found. After discussing their options they decided it was in the "best interests" of the patient to be resuscitated.
This decision was made without a medical ethicist. But under four broad topics which are: medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features. It was decided that the tattoo could have being a previous wish which she no longer held, done in a fit of mental instability or a joke/dare. It was also accessed that her prognosis was positive and her condition reversible. Further more, it was discovered the tattoo was not legally binding as it was not signed and witnessed.
Lastly, not all ethical issues could or should have being discussed before her treatment such as the Marco issues of allowing scare resources to be used to treat patients who regularly attempt suicide. Also a final question: does do not resuscitate mean do not treat?
No comments:
Post a Comment