1. Defib is a component of CPR
2. Even when the defib arrives it may be of no use for that rhythm
3. Even when the defib is used you carry on compressions
Advertisement
by Fionnuala_Saoirse » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:51 am
by Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:51 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:
Defibrillator is part of CPR and only usable in certain rhythms (VF and pulseless VT). What did they tell you to do after the shock had been delivered in this course of yours? That's right, get the fuck back on the chest. If you're not moving oxygen into the lungs, then into the blood, then getting that blood around the body, you're trying to shock a cardiac output out of a vegetable.
they gave us a mask to blow air in and out of the lungs i would have to check my cpr booklet to answer you. ( i dont remember )
by Fartsniffage » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:52 am
Vladovaskia wrote:White Spider wrote:My granny is in hospital at the moment and just found out that the doctors had put a 'Do Not Attempt CPR' form in her notes. This was only discovered by her after my father caught sight of the form on the front of her notes when the doctors were doing their rounds. It's disgusting that they can basically remove your chance at life without even discussing it with you first and apparently, in the UK at least, there's nothing prohibiting it.
What do you think?
Medical student here. She may have very well told them not to resuscitate. Even though she may not want to die, she may not want to have her ribs broken and a possible death from attempting to save her if something goes wrong. Maybe the doctors have concluded that it would be too dangerous to perform CPR on her in her current state. Either way, don't freak out and start hating the doctors for something you're not informed on. I'm not from Britain, but I'm sure they don't want her to die. Quite frankly, they'd be losing a customer.
by Fartsniffage » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:56 am
Vamtrl wrote:No matter the risks, the decision should be firmly laid on the feet of the patients or POA. Doctors can educate them but they should never be able to get the final say.
by Eastfield Lodge » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:58 am
Fartsniffage wrote:Vamtrl wrote:No matter the risks, the decision should be firmly laid on the feet of the patients or POA. Doctors can educate them but they should never be able to get the final say.
And so we're back to forcing doctors to perform medical procedures that they don't believe to be in the best interests of the patient.
by Vamtrl » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:59 am
Fartsniffage wrote:Vamtrl wrote:No matter the risks, the decision should be firmly laid on the feet of the patients or POA. Doctors can educate them but they should never be able to get the final say.
And so we're back to forcing doctors to perform medical procedures that they don't believe to be in the best interests of the patient.
by The Rich Port » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:59 am
Vamtrl wrote:No matter the risks, the decision should be firmly laid on the feet of the patients or POA. Doctors can educate them but they should never be able to get the final say.
by Vamtrl » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:01 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Vamtrl wrote:No matter the risks, the decision should be firmly laid on the feet of the patients or POA. Doctors can educate them but they should never be able to get the final say.
Ain't that just great for the doctors?
If the patient dies in their care and they didn't hear every little thing the patient's family had to say, it's the doctor's fault.
If the patient's family decides something stupid and the patient dies, it's the doctor's fault for not educating the patient's family.
If the patient decides something and is wrong and he or she dies, it's the doctor's fault for not educating the patient.
Is it ever the patient or the patient's family's fault?
by Eastfield Lodge » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:03 pm
Vamtrl wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
Ain't that just great for the doctors?
If the patient dies in their care and they didn't hear every little thing the patient's family had to say, it's the doctor's fault.
If the patient's family decides something stupid and the patient dies, it's the doctor's fault for not educating the patient's family.
If the patient decides something and is wrong and he or she dies, it's the doctor's fault for not educating the patient.
Is it ever the patient or the patient's family's fault?
Grief sucks, whats next.
by Fartsniffage » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:04 pm
by Vamtrl » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:11 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:It isn't about feelings for the doctor. It's about adhering to the ethical standards of their profession.
Forcing doctors to perform actions they know to be incredibly likely to harm the patient goes against everything they're supposed to stand for.
Eastfield Lodge wrote:What he's trying to say is that if your opinion becomes protocol, then the above happens. The onus will always then be on the doctor, and the patient gets away with no blame whatsoever.
by The Rich Port » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:13 pm
Vamtrl wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:It isn't about feelings for the doctor. It's about adhering to the ethical standards of their profession.
Forcing doctors to perform actions they know to be incredibly likely to harm the patient goes against everything they're supposed to stand for.
Isn't letting someone die even if there is a small chance of success unethical? Or are we just going by the numbers.Eastfield Lodge wrote:What he's trying to say is that if your opinion becomes protocol, then the above happens. The onus will always then be on the doctor, and the patient gets away with no blame whatsoever.
It leaves the doctor less liable since the decision is made by the family. They signed off on it, and that's it. The doctors butt is covered as long as they do their jobs of educating the patients. Whether they get permission or not, the patients would take their grief towards the doctor.
by SolasDagr » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:16 pm
by The Remnants of Kobol » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:16 pm
Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:The Remnants of Kobol wrote:
Actually, defibrillators are the most effective form of resuscitation. You only use CPR (the compression method) when you don't have access to DD, or until one arrives.
1. Defib is a component of CPR
2. Even when the defib arrives it may be of no use for that rhythm
3. Even when the defib is used you carry on compressions
by Fartsniffage » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:16 pm
Vamtrl wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:It isn't about feelings for the doctor. It's about adhering to the ethical standards of their profession.
Forcing doctors to perform actions they know to be incredibly likely to harm the patient goes against everything they're supposed to stand for.
Isn't letting someone die even if there is a small chance of success unethical? Or are we just going by the numbers.
by Vamtrl » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:25 pm
There's really nothing a doctor can do if the family's stupid opinions matter more than saving the patient's life.
Yeah, maybe the stupid family should get a fucking medical degree first and then be allowed to think their opinions matter. It only matters after the patient can't decide for him/herself, and even then, I think you could do fucking better.
Fartsniffage wrote:Again, CPR has nothing to do with letting people die. The person is already dead. CPR is about trying to bring them back from dead, very different.
And if the number show that statistically the person is better off remaining in that state then the doctors should do that. After all, the entirety of medicine is following the numbers, why wouldn't you in this?
by Purpelia » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:26 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Is it ever the patient or the patient's family's fault?
by Fionnuala_Saoirse » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:29 pm
The Remnants of Kobol wrote:Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:
1. Defib is a component of CPR
2. Even when the defib arrives it may be of no use for that rhythm
3. Even when the defib is used you carry on compressions
I've reupped my certification multiple times and every time, what I have told you, is what I have been taught. If you have been certified as well, its good to see that not even EMTs can agree on what is right...
by Ethel mermania » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:33 pm
by Purpelia » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:36 pm
by Fartsniffage » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:38 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
Okay, so can you show how a DNR equals letting someone die using wiki's words?
lets see, dad goes to the hospital for a gallbladder operation, the operation is a sucess. while in recovery his chest fills with fluid, the pressure in his chest presses on his heart and it stops beating. the dnr will stop the meidical personal from trying to restart his heart or relieving the fluid in his lungs. simple enough for you?
by The Floating Island of the Sleeping God » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:40 pm
Purpelia wrote:Vamtrl wrote:
Well that is the principal. When you place your life or health in the hands of a medical professional you are placing your trust that as someone who has training and experience in the field of medicine he or she will render a service that is in your interest to the best of his or her abilities. Thus, if the results turn out to be inadequate there are only going to be two possible reasons for this. Either the objective circumstances and resources at the disposal of the medical professional are inadequate or said professionals behavior was inadequate.
The Blaatschapen wrote:Just to note, liberals are not sheep. Sheep are liberals ;)
by The Rich Port » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:40 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Adharcaili, Boainn Bezy, Emotional Support Crocodile, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, New Crywyzyxycynya, The Apollonian Systems, The Black Forrest, THe cHadS, Tlaceceyaya, Zurkerx
Advertisement