Poll of the Day > when should a doctor save someone's life, easy to hard

(+) Yeah! (+)

All right let's go, several scenarios from easiest to hardest, where we can say yes or no to the question: should the doctor save this person's life

Someone's unconscious and needs urgent care

Someone's unconscious, needs urgent care but has a DNR

Someone's signed a DNR years ago but recently, while suffering from dementia, expressed the will to keep on living . The person's unconscious and family members disagree on what should be done.

Child needs a life saving treatment but parents refuse it due to religious taboo

Pregnant woman had signed a DNR years ago. She's unconscious, if she's saved now that'll save the child as well, but it's too early for a premature birth

Child needs life saving treatment after a car crash, one parent disagrees with the treatment due to religious taboo, the other would agree but is unconscious from the same crash.

Baby Hitler is having a cardiac arrest

Vicaris posted...

All right let's go, several scenarios from easiest to hardest, where we can say yes or no to the question: should the doctor save this person's life

Someone's unconscious and needs urgent care

Doctor's are required to treat unconscious patients but certain things they cannot do without a patient's consent.

Someone's unconscious, needs urgent care but has a DNR

Give them urgent care if possible, but if they slip then don't bring them back - that's what a DNR is. They actually have to need resuscitation to begin with.

Someone's signed a DNR years ago but recently, while suffering from dementia, expressed the will to keep on living . The person's unconscious and family members disagree on what should be done.

This unfortunately happens more than you think. There's a controversy on what state of mind a person has to be in to revoke a DNR. The argument is if they are even able enough to make that decision. Doctors will ignore a DNR if the patient verbally consents to life-saving measures. It doesn't matter what family says in these instances because the patient has autonomy.

Child needs a life saving treatment but parents refuse it due to religious taboo

In the fucked up country of America, children are seen more as a parents' property than as individuals with their own rights. Doctors can't force treatment onto children without they parents' consent, even if the child themselves consents to treatment. It's an awful system and plenty of children have died because of it. However, the parents may later be charged with neglect depending on the circumstances. If you ask me, children deserve more rights.

Pregnant woman had signed a DNR years ago. She's unconscious, if she's saved now that'll save the child as well, but it's too early for a premature birth

They recently did this in Georgia. A woman was legally brain-dead but doctors were forced to keep her body alive to save the life of her unborn baby due to the state's barbaric abortion laws. They essentially used this poor woman's corpse to harvest a baby that would be doomed to grow up without a mother. Her family just wanted to remove her from life support but it wasn't their choice. It's extremely fucked up that this can happen and an insult to autonomy and the wishes of a grieving family. This should never be allowed unless somebody who is pregnant consents to this happening after they die.

Child needs life saving treatment after a car crash, one parent disagrees with the treatment due to religious taboo, the other would agree but is unconscious from the same crash.

So long as one parent consents to treatment, then doctors will treat. But if one parent is unable to consent, then they have to listen to the other. Again, children are property in America.

Baby Hitler is having a cardiac arrest

Don't do anything because if you do then you'll alter the timeline.

Vicaris posted...

Child needs a life saving treatment but parents refuse it due to religious taboo

The Netherlands has a procedure for this where in an emergency court decision, the parental rights are very briefly voided, the procedure is done and then the rights are restored, meaning the child is saved and the parents can clear their conscience saying they did not authorize this. Or so I hear. I'm the first religious person in the family in a few generations and I can't begin to imagine the reasoning that would convince somebody their child should not receive life saving treatment.

Vicaris posted...

Someone's signed a DNR years ago but recently, while suffering from dementia, expressed the will to keep on living . The person's unconscious and family members disagree on what should be done.

I know a prior DNR is explicitly voided by dementia here. Even if the wording included a "in case of dementia".

Flappers posted...

They recently did this in Georgia. A woman was legally brain-dead but doctors were forced to keep her body alive to save the life of her unborn baby due to the state's barbaric abortion laws. They essentially used this poor woman's corpse to harvest a baby that would be doomed to grow up without a mother. Her family just wanted to remove her from life support but it wasn't their choice. It's extremely f***ed up that this can happen and an insult to autonomy and the wishes of a grieving family. This should never be allowed unless somebody who is pregnant consents to this happening after they die.

This is honestly one of the most horrifying things I have ever heard of. They used a corpse to incubate a child. They took a dead body, hooked it to machines, and made it work until it wasn't needed anymore.

For a world that is rapidly becoming the one from Brave New World, we're not using their procreation methods.

KingInBlack posted...

This is honestly one of the most horrifying things I have ever heard of. They used a corpse to incubate a child. They took a dead body, hooked it to machines, and made it work until it wasn't needed anymore.

For a world that is rapidly becoming the one from Brave New World, we're not using their procreation methods.

It's actually pretty genius that it worked at all.

Flappers posted...

They recently did this in Georgia. A woman was legally brain-dead but doctors were forced to keep her body alive to save the life of her unborn baby due to the state's barbaric abortion laws.

KingInBlack posted...

This is honestly one of the most horrifying things I have ever heard of.

Except those same barbaric abortion laws also had women dying from sepsis due to doctors literally being too afraid to do anything in fear of being sued.

KingInBlack posted...

This is honestly one of the most horrifying things I have ever heard of. They used a corpse to incubate a child. They took a dead body, hooked it to machines, and made it work until it wasn't needed anymore.

And the family just had to live with that. And after all of that, now they're stuck raising a baby through their grief. It's ghoulish.

For a world that is rapidly becoming the one from Brave New World, we're not using their procreation methods.

America is on it's way to becoming the handmaid's tale fr. We have the worst healthcare for women out of any wealthy nation and our (women's) rights change from state to state while men's don't. I don't think a lot of American's understand how baffling it is to have never had a female leader in this day and age.

Roachmeat posted...

Except those same barbaric abortion laws also had women dying from sepsis due to doctors literally being too afraid to do anything in fear of being sued.

And republicans have covered up the stats on just how many women died or became infertile because of this. Now they're trying to make it so that women who have abortions are charged with murder. What the fuck is even going on here???

Don't know why you guys keep living there if it's so awful.
The Canadian border is not that far away, freedom is like a few hours drive for most Americans and your instantly 40% richer as you cross the border.

Yo y'all hijacking my post with abortion

Flappers posted...

What the fuck is even going on here???

The most visceral possible manifestation of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, or as I would say, good intentions without good sense being good for nothing.

Abortion is a horrible choice, but the fact that situations exist that are yet even more horrible necessitate that abortion remains an option. To refer to one's own nation as the land of the free despite such basic human rights being stripped away, and the home of the brave when people are too cowardly and distrusting to allow their own neighbors to make their own decisions is a height of irony that is impossibly disgusting beyond description.

Flappers posted...

In the fucked up country of America, children are seen more as a parents' property than as individuals with their own rights. Doctors can't force treatment onto children without they parents' consent, even if the child themselves consents to treatment. It's an awful system and plenty of children have died because of it. However, the parents may later be charged with neglect depending on the circumstances. If you ask me, children deserve more rights.

There's slightly more nuance to this. I'd argue it depends on what the parent is being asked to consent to, and what their justifications for denying consent are.

Parents in a position where they're denying consent because they're told it's an experimental procedure which only has a 20% chance of success but has a 90% chance of leaving the child permanently and severely crippled or brain-damaged is somewhat more justifiable than parents objecting because they're refusing a blood transfusion because their religion says they're not allowed to have them.

There's also the added complication that it can be hard to say a child has offered informed consent if the child is too young to understand what they're being asked. It's one thing if we're talking about parents overriding the desires of a 16 year old because the law says they're not legally allowed to make decisions for themselves, but a 5 year old probably shouldn't be making permanent and life-altering decisions about anything.



Flappers posted...

Vicaris posted...

Baby Hitler is having a cardiac arrest

Don't do anything because if you do then you'll alter the timeline.

But what if Baby Hitler wasn't supposed to have a cardiac arrest (it didn't happen in the original timeline, so either your presence has already altered the timeline, or another time traveler has come back in time and given him something to poison him), and dying would irreversibly alter the timeline (as far as you know)?

SinisterSlay posted...

Don't know why you guys keep living there if it's so awful.
The Canadian border is not that far away, freedom is like a few hours drive for most Americans and your instantly 40% richer as you cross the border.

Are you aware immigration laws are a thing?

man101 posted...

Are you aware immigration laws are a thing?

Having gone through them, yes, and they aren't that difficult. Especially if your under 50, speak English or French, and have useful skills.

man101 posted...

Are you aware immigration laws are a thing?

And Canada literally changed their laws to make it harder for Americans to get in after Vietnam, because of all the draft dodgers crossing the border.

It's basically a requirement to be able to speak at least some level of French, last time I heard (a friend of mine moved there to hook up with a Canadian girl).

SinisterSlay posted...

Don't know why you guys keep living there if it's so awful.
The Canadian border is not that far away, freedom is like a few hours drive for most Americans and your instantly 40% richer as you cross the border.

Bro it isn't that easy.

People my age can barely even afford a place to live. You think I'll be able to pay for a way out? And you can't just go somewhere and stay. You have to get a job, find a place to live, go through immigration laws, live there for years before becoming a citizen, all while still paying American taxes on top of the taxes of the country you're in because America loves to rob its citizens).

I've hated it here for half of my life. Believe me, I'd move to Australia or New Zealand and renounce my US citizenship in a heartbeat if I could, but the system of the country I was born in is designed for us to fail so that the rich can prosper.

It fucking keeps me up at night. If I have to stay here forever then I might simply pass away.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And Canada literally changed their laws to make it harder for Americans to get in after Vietnam, because of all the draft dodgers crossing the border.

It's basically a requirement to be able to speak at least some level of French, last time I heard (a friend of mine moved there to hook up with a Canadian girl).

Thankfully that's not true.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/who-can-apply.html

Is it hard? Yes, but considering what other refugees have had to do, you have it easy.

Flappers posted...

Bro it isn't that easy.

People my age can barely even afford a place to live. You think I'll be able to pay for a way out? And you can't just go somewhere and stay. You have to get a job, find a place to live, go through immigration laws, live there for years before becoming a citizen, all while still paying American taxes on top of the taxes of the country you're in because America loves to rob its citizens).

I've hated it here for half of my life. Believe me, I'd move to Australia or New Zealand and renounce my US citizenship in a heartbeat if I could, but the system of the country I was born in is designed for us to fail so that the rich can prosper.

It fucking keeps me up at night. If I have to stay here forever then I might simply pass away.

Bro people do it all the time and they go to a country where they can't even speak the language. It's just that they're okay with cleaning toilets, dishes, roofing

1. Yes.
2. No. Respect the patient's autonomy if DNR is valid.
3. Possibly yes, DNR may be overridden if outdated. Would leave it up to a ethical committee and/or lawyer if the situation wasn't urgent.
4. Yes. The childs right to life takes precedence.
5. No. The Womans wishes take precedence.
6. Yes, act in childs best interests but either way you only need 1 parents consent.
7. Lol, not answering that one.

Vicaris posted...

Bro people do it all the time and they go to a country where they can't even speak the language. It's just that they're okay with cleaning toilets, dishes, roofing

I would do nothing but shovel horse shit off tarmac roads in 90f weather for 8 hours a day, every day, on weekends and holidays, and I still wouldn't be able to move. If you honestly think it's that easy then you're delusional.

Flappers posted...

I would do nothing but shovel horse shit off tarmac roads in 90f weather for 8 hours a day, every day, on weekends and holidays, and I still wouldn't be able to move. If you honestly think it's that easy then you're delusional.

Don't think it's easy just saying it's doable because people really do it. I know people who have even. It's just a risk though, and definitely a bit of survivorship bias when I say something like "I know people who have".

But yeah I know people who just up and went to the us and they didn't even know English.

SinisterSlay posted...

Don't know why you guys keep living there if it's so awful.
The Canadian border is not that far away, freedom is like a few hours drive for most Americans and your instantly 40% richer as you cross the border.

According to Google it is 1,541 miles away.

Revelation34 posted...

According to Google it is 1,541 miles away.

Then your one of the unlucky few that live in a southern state but aren't a right winger I guess.

Vicaris posted...

Don't think it's easy just saying it's doable because people really do it. I know people who have even. It's just a risk though, and definitely a bit of survivorship bias when I say something like "I know people who have".

But yeah I know people who just up and went to the us and they didn't even know English.

Going to the US and leaving it are entirely different things. And yes, of course people have done it, but it's only a dream for the most of us.

You know depending on how old you are and how unburdened by life, ditching us over Canada might not be so bad in the long run. US feeling like a falling Roman empire by the day and on the other hand Canada standing as one of the few winners, or lesser losers, of global warming.

SinisterSlay posted...

Then your one of the unlucky few that live in a southern state but aren't a right winger I guess.

Arizona is southwest.

The way I see it, if there's ever a question about the validity of a DNR or similar order, it's better to err on the side of saving their life. If somebody ends up living when they would have preferred to die, they can always end their own life as needed (and I would expect such a case to qualify easily for MAID, if needed). If somebody ends up dying when they would have preferred to live, they're out of luck. Given a choice between creating a problem that can be fixed and creating a problem that can't, the former just makes more sense to me.

Now, that comes with the caveat that they have to remain competent enough to express their disappointment after their life has been saved. If the live, but end up vegetative, they can't really kill themselves anymore, so this logic falls apart. In that regard, it's a bit of a gamble, because situations where you can't guarantee their level of competency after resuscitation are pretty common. There's also a fair chance that somebody who wants to die for religious reasons (like a Jehovah's Witness turning down a blood transfusion) would also have religious objections to suicide, but my reasoning there is that if your god would have wanted you to die and you only lived because somebody else interfered, it would make sense to guess that killing yourself to correct that interference would be in line with your god's will (as opposed to the usual religious objection to suicide being because it denies god's wish for you to live).

SinisterSlay posted...

It's actually pretty genius that it worked at all.

Not really. Provided you've got blood circulation, gas exchange, nutrient absorption, and the requisite reproductive bits are intact (which does include the endocrine side of things, so it's a bit more than just "have uterus"), a fetus can grow. Brain death doesn't prevent any of that, so all you really need is basic life support and a braindead person can carry a pregnancy to term.

Heck, if you really wanted to get dystopian about it, you could pretty easily keep braindead women around specifically for the sake of farming babies without having to deal with the challenges of growing them artificially. That would, however, be horrific, and this acknowledgement should not be considered in any way an endorsement of raping braindead women to turn them into baby factories.

Vicaris posted...

and on the other hand Canada standing as one of the few winners, or lesser losers, of global warming.

Though you might want to invest in some N95 masks if you like going outside, given how often a significant chunk of the country is on fire these days.

adjl posted...

Heck, if you really wanted to get dystopian about it, you could pretty easily keep braindead women around specifically for the sake of farming babies without having to deal with the challenges of growing them artificially. That would, however, be horrific, and this acknowledgement should not be considered in any way an endorsement of raping braindead women to turn them into baby factories.

With the baby catastrophe we're having, I would not be surprised if certain governments started doing this.

adjl posted...

Though you might want to invest in some N95 masks if you like going outside, given how often a significant chunk of the country is on fire these days.

You just stay indoors, exactly the same as winter.