Should doctors have to tell you they won't try CPR?

[White Spider]

Unless they're giving up their rights to choose in a private hospital though right?

Lol hell no.

My thoughts too

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Uh...yes? If that was a stipulation told to the patient/their family or available for viewing on public record, sure.

You can't get rid of your rights like that

You can absolutely volunteer to give up your rights in exchange for a service. At most jobs, for instance, you give up your right to free speech by agreeing not to be offensive and tarnish the company's name. A private hospital could definitely have a condition that the doctor, not the patient, be allowed to make their medical decisions with regards to their stay at the hospital. At least, in America it could. It probably wouldn't do great business, but it could try.

[White Spider]

At least, in America it could. It probably wouldn't do great business.

This isn't America thank God

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Just to be clear, I wouldn't ever go to a hospital where the doctors made every choice for me, but it could happen. Only at a private hospital, though.

[Ashmoria]

so your grandmother is no longer DNR?

Yes and the GMC and the hospital are looking further into it.

well I hope that someone in the nhs system takes the time to talk to your family about why it is wise to ask for dnr status. it would be a shame if your grandmother ended up suffering due to your lack of understanding.

[Ashmoria]

Just to be clear, I wouldn't ever go to a hospital where the doctors made every choice for me, but it could happen. Only at a private hospital, though.

why should a private hospital get to do things to you that a public hospital cant?

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Just to be clear, I wouldn't ever go to a hospital where the doctors made every choice for me, but it could happen. Only at a private hospital, though.

why should a private hospital get to do things to you that a public hospital cant?

Because that's how private institutions work? They get to do things the government can't because your contract with them is different than your social contract with the government. I don't make the rules, I just talk about them on the Internet.

[White Spider]

Yes and the GMC and the hospital are looking further into it.

well I hope that someone in the nhs system takes the time to talk to your family about why it is wise to ask for dnr status. it would be a shame if your grandmother ended up suffering due to your lack of understanding.

Don't be patronising. I understand fully.

[Ashmoria]

why should a private hospital get to do things to you that a public hospital cant?

Because that's how private institutions work? They get to do things the government can't because your contract with them is different than your social contract with the government. I don't make the rules, I just talk about them on the Internet.

that doesn't make sense to me. good medical practice should be the overarching rule for all doctors, clinics and hospitals. if it is good practice (and it is) to talk to patients about DNR then it is good practice no matter who runs the facility.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Because that's how private institutions work? They get to do things the government can't because your contract with them is different than your social contract with the government. I don't make the rules, I just talk about them on the Internet.

that doesn't make sense to me. good medical practice should be the overarching rule for all doctors, clinics and hospitals. if it is good practice (and it is) to talk to patients about DNR then it is good practice no matter who runs the facility.

I fully agree. It should be. I recall specifically saying a page or so ago that I doubt a hospital operating like the hypothetical would be in business for long. I'm just explaining that it could potentially exist without breaking any laws because...well, because I responded to a question a while back and let myself get sidetracked talking about how free corporations are in the US. Let's drop it.

[Ashmoria]

that doesn't make sense to me. good medical practice should be the overarching rule for all doctors, clinics and hospitals. if it is good practice (and it is) to talk to patients about DNR then it is good practice no matter who runs the facility.

I fully agree. It should be. I recall specifically saying a page or so ago that I doubt a hospital operating like the hypothetical would be in business for long. I'm just explaining that it could potentially exist without breaking any laws because...well, because I responded to a question a while back and let myself get sidetracked talking about how free corporations are in the US. Let's drop it.

OK

im not good with hypotheticals about other countries anyway.

[Communal Ecotopia]

One should ask for painkillers, not death.

In all countries where euthanasia is legal, it is abused, and people are murdered unwillingly by doctors, even new born babies sometimes. That is sufficient justification to ban the practice of a doctor facilitating a patient's death. Doctors exist to heal, not to murder.

Source? In the US, euthanasia outlawed, but PAD (physician-assisted suicide) is only allowed in a few states and only by the consent of the patient, and only if a physician says they're 100% terminal, and the patient has to administer the lethal dosage themselves.
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resou ... eID=000132

I'll source two. David A. Asch, “The Role of Critical Care Nurses in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide,” New England Journal of Medicine 334, no. 21 (May 23, 1996): 1374.

and, this one's in the Netherlands, where' the Groningen Protocol makes it legal; Verhagen, Eduard, J.J. Sol, O.F. Brower, and Pieter Sauer. “Deliberate Termination in Life of Newborns in the Netherlands; Review of All 22 Reported Cases between 1997 and 2004.” Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 149, no. 4 (January 22, 2005): 183-188. Or...Verhagen, Eduard and Pieter Sauer. “The Groningen Protocol—Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns.” The New England Journal of Medicine 352, no. 10 (March 10, 2005): 959-962.

Now, the civil libertarian in me wants to say that a patient should be able to choose to live or die, but I have two concerns: One is that many people in pain who don't always have to be are asking to die. The other, which I think is more important, is that I don't think that individuals, especially with impairment, don't receive either the societal support or the sense of value from society that makes them think their continued life is worthwhile. My former acquaintance Harriet McBryde Johnson describes a discussion in her book Too Late to Die Young, contra Peter Singer.

She asks why Singer singles out infants with impairment for death. Singer offers that both biological and adoptive parents prefer healthy babies. Johnson counters with the fact that adoptive parents also statistically fail to embrace mixed-race babies. “Wouldn’t a law allowing the killing of these undervalued babies validate race prejudice?” Johnson asks. Singer agrees that that would be an unacceptable outcome. Johnson continues, “What’s the difference? Preferences based on race are unreasonable. Preferences based on ability are not. Why?” Singer’s answer speaks to a dangerous misunderstanding about people with impairment. The reason Singer singles out babies with severe impairment is that they are intrinsically “worse off.” He makes pernicious assumptions here, which are patriarchal in their imposition of perspective and simply wrong. Johnson states, “…I have trouble with basing life-and-death decisions on market considerations when the market is structured by prejudice.” Parental/medical preference based on the difficulties a child with severe impairment might be expected to encounter cannot be seriously considered until the concept of “being a burden” ceases to exist. If infanticide is on the table, the pressure to eliminate a future “burden to society” will become a socially coercive element in that parental decision

[Sociobiology]

until you are in horrible pain and need it.

appeal to emotion much

emotions are an integral point in personal life or death decisions. There is no purely rational reason to prefer a live hospital bound person to a corpse. don't berate emotional arguments about a largely emotional decision.
also please learn what an appeal to emotion is, because I was just pointing out likely hypocrisy in wanting something for yourself while denying it to others. That was not an actual appeal to emotion.