Should Doctors Resuscitate or Attend To Patients With DO NOT RESUSCITATE Tattoo?

DNR form used in Virginia

Doctors at the University of Miami hospital were confronted with the dilemma of their lives when 70 year old unconscious man with a "do not resuscitate" tattoo boldly written on his chest was wheeled in by hospital attendants.

This incident as shocking as it is has sparked no little controversy between medicine and ethics. The debate is whether the dying man should be saved or to honour the choice of a supposed rational human capable of taking actions to which he is solely responsible for.

The 70 year old man, who was intoxicated probably with alchohol had long standing history of heart and lung diseases. All efforts that were directed towards reaching out to his family proved abortive owing to his elevated blood-alcohol level.

His pulse was quite unstable and in a bid to revive him, doctors made frantic efforts to save him but were unable to salvage the situation as he passed on. Paramedics wheeled the victim into the hospital emergency after finding him unconscious on the street.

After so much deliberation between ethicists and doctors a deal was struck to respect the mans tatoo. The dilemma helped them realize the need for an updated system of getting to know patient's end of life wishes.

Dr Greg Holt, one of the doctors at Miami hospital who attempted to the patient made an assertion to the fact that the mans tattoo appeared to be a unique one which drew not only his attention, but also the the attention of his colleagues.

Another doctor available at the scene was Bianca Sarmento, she explained that they decided to honor the victims tattoo as it entailed the unavoidable principle of not choosing an irreversible path when faced with uncertainty.
According to her " this decision got us confused and torn in between two costly choices, to save his life or respect his choices. We had to consult an an ethicist when it was obvioussly pelucid what the victim wanted."

After going through his medical history, ethics consultants explained to the doctors the reason why the order on thevictims tattoo had to be followed strictly.
"It was suggested that it sounded more rational and reasonable to admit that the tattoo connoted an implied choice, which served as a caution and also an obligation to a ceremony to which the patient would gladly like to adhere to. Intuitively, the law is sometimes not supposed to interfer with patient-centered care and respect for the best interests of patients in this situation" the doctors added.

The doctors put a halt to the treatment they were administering on the patient. The major object of concern for them was that the tattoo did not serve as legally binding contract like a originally signed, Do Not Resuscitate Order.

The do not resuscitate tattoo had an emphasis on the not so as to cause no need for further confusion or dilemma.

Dr Greg stated that his team's major concern was legality and lawfulness.
Tattoos are not meant to be legally binding do not resuscitate orders. There are quite a good number of requirements for legal orders in Florida. For any DNR order to hold, there needs to be a compromise between the doctor and patient and this involves not only oral dialogue, but the participation of trusted signatories.

Every DNR order is protected by medical privacy laws. People who want DNRs have to go through a regimented process of filling out standard forms and documents with trusted doctors. They get bracelets or wallets cards which clearly states thier statuses.

In another interesting case study, doctors discorverd a tattoo with a DNR inscription on the leg of a man awaiting amoutation. When confronted with this the man opined that its was the opposite of his wishes.

The supposed patient, a hospital worker had lost a bet which he staked when he was younger,and then agreed to a tattoo but never thought anyone would take his tattoo seriously.

DNRs are equivalent to euthanasia, a situation in which a patient desires to die in the face of a possible medical attention owing to the distress caused by the ailment he/she is suffering from.

It could be either active or passive. Its passive when the patient's kin agrees to put an end to the patients life because of financial implications of the ailment or their feeling of pity they experience when they keep on seeding the patient in that condition. Most times this is done without the patient's consent.

It becomes active when the ailing patient willingly consents to have his life exterminated by the doctor through injections or tablets.

It is necessary that a person's choice be considered, regarded and honoured as long as it has to do with conscious,reasonable and rational obligations.

Image source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_resuscitate