Is A "do-Not-Resuscitate" Order Ever Ethical?

[MithLuin]

Okay, I should back up and revise that.

Not everyone should have DNRs. If you have a family you are responsible for (for instance), you would have a reason to want to survive a heart attack. If your affairs are in order, you have no dependents, and you've been to confession lately....yeah, a DNR might sound like a good idea. When it's your time, it's your time. So, you don't have to be sick with a lethal illness to get one....but I will repeat that not everyone should have one.

[N/A Gone]

My wife is an Uber Nurse. These issues are common and will continue to get more controversial as medicine develops and the baby boomers get older. We need good, orthodox, Moral theologians to produce work explaining and exploring the evils of Euthanasia and how we respond to a medical situation where a cancer patient suffers an incredibly dehumanizing death.

/rant.

[MichaelFilo]

This is interesting. We have learned alot in medicine, and we have capabilities today that save lives in ways we couldn't a decade ago. The issue, however, is whether anyone is morally obligated to accept these new methods.

(To Mr.Cat, it is weird to talk about anyone having a "right" to anything that wasn't around 100 years ago, for instance.)

The problem, however, is that how much things can you refuse that will keep you alive? What if all there is synthetic food? That is a new invention.

So, the question really is, what basis can one reject assistance, or what assistance can be rejected? Can it only be rejected cause it is modern? Can any assistance be rejected at will, say even food or water?

I hate this question more than most questions that pertain to Catholic morality. I watched a video in class about a guy who chose to die and his journey, but that was physician assisted suicide. However, it made my heart drop. Where do we draw the line between suicide and a choice to not fight death?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494558' post='2186471']This is interesting. We have learned alot in medicine, and we have capabilities today that save lives in ways we couldn't a decade ago. The issue, however, is whether anyone is morally obligated to accept these new methods.[/quote]I am familiar with someone who quietly found a lonely place, then shot themselves in the head to end their lives, thanks to the marvels of modern medicine we saved them. As a scientist put it to me in one of my introductory courses, the question is no longer "[i]can we do it[/i]" but rather "[i]should we do it[/i]"?

I could only imagine their surprise waking up to doctors welcoming them back to the land of the living.[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494558' post='2186471'](To Mr.Cat, it is weird to talk about anyone having a "right" to anything that wasn't around 100 years ago, for instance.)[/quote]Health care is not a luxury, its a need. If you could find a free market soultion to provide what I drafted before that avoids the problems of our health care system, wonderful. But it doesn't seem likely to me, some things just have to be socialized to some degree such as police, firefighters, road construction, and so on. [quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494558' post='2186471']The problem, however, is that how much things can you refuse that will keep you alive? What if all there is synthetic food? That is a new invention.[/quote][i]In my personal philosophy and opinion[/i], a patient should always be able to choose and deny care.[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494558' post='2186471']So, the question really is, what basis can one reject assistance, or what assistance can be rejected? Can it only be rejected cause it is modern? Can any assistance be rejected at will, say even food or water?[/quote]I think that ought to be up to the patient, in as much as possible.[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1289494558' post='2186471']I hate this question more than most questions that pertain to Catholic morality. I watched a video in class about a guy who chose to die and his journey, but that was physician assisted suicide. However, it made my heart drop. Where do we draw the line between suicide and a choice to not fight death?[/quote]We can't draw that line, we can merely try to save lives the best we can. But I have to sympathize; There has to be a better way...

Edited November 12, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

Police, fire military and roads are not "socialized." They are ordinary government services available to all. Social programs are limited to social programs to solve social problems and are limited to those who qualify.

[MithLuin]

Refusing food and/or water is suicide, because you would essentially be starving yourself to death. A DNR merely states that in the event that your heart stops beating, you don't want people to jump in and try to revive you with CPR, etc. If you haven't made the decision in advance, you can't make it at the time. A person who needs CPR is in no condition to refuse treatment! So, while I understand that people should (under normal circumstances) have the right to refuse medical care/treatment for themselves, they really *don't* have the ability to refuse treatment in an emergency, and emergency personnel (EMTs) presume that the person would want the attempt to save them to be made. Saying that,in your case, CPR isn't needed is not suicide. You only die if your heart stops anyway...which is, well, just natural death.

We all die in the end. There is no medical miracle to change or prevent that. So, at some point, end of life decisions have to be made (or they will be made for you). Discussing that may be a bit depressing, but there it is.

On Tuesday night, my father baptized a woman who was on her deathbed. She's still receiving treatment (chemo), so neither she nor her family have given up, but that doesn't mean the end isn't near anyway. She has a 15 year old daughter; she's been sick for 7 years. I'm really glad someone thought to request baptism for her, and that she was strong enough to confirm that she desired it.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289575750' post='2186706']Police, fire military and roads are not "socialized." They are ordinary government services available to all. Social programs are limited to social programs to solve social problems and are limited to those who qualify.[/quote]Yes, they are socialized. Public roads are usually owned by a government, public property, are regulated by a government, maintained by taxes, and are for public use. Police, fight fighters, and the military the same could be said for in similar ways.

Winchester, I can appreciate your repugnant aversion to the word "socialism", but under any definition I can imagine these services meet such definitions, in fact it even meets your definition. Even though a road is public property and pedestrians are usually granted the first right of way, you can be penalized for disrupting traffic. But I will admit I am using a loose meaning of the word socialized, though if you recall when we discussed this before, that's apart of the problem with the word, it's too vague.

A capitalist example of these services would be privatized organizations that work for security, fire protection, mercenaries, or privately contracted road construction services. But this isn't the time or the place for a discussion on socialism.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1289582877' post='2186729']

A capitalist example of these services would be privatized organizations that work for security, fire protection, mercenaries, or privately contracted road construction services. But this isn't the time or the place for a discussion on socialism.
[/quote]
There is more than simply capitalism and socialism.

That I may be penalized for obstructing traffic in no way makes roads "socialist."

Edited November 12, 2010 by Winchester

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289585620' post='2186734']There is more than simply capitalism and socialism.[/quote]Yes there is... A lot more.[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289585620' post='2186734']That I may be penalized for obstructing traffic in no way makes roads "socialist."[/quote]Public program that may be only used if you qualify to use it, meaning your using it in the manner prescribed by the government. Sounds familiar... Funny that the government expects you to own an authorized vehicle that meets their qualifications, have a driver that is licensed and insured, and operate their vehicle in a specific way.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1289608262' post='2186781']
Yes there is... A lot more.Public program that may be only used if you qualify to use it, meaning your using it in the manner prescribed by the government. Sounds familiar... Funny that the government expects you to own an authorized vehicle that meets their qualifications, have a driver that is licensed and insured, and operate their vehicle in a specific way.
[/quote]
Why are you hijacking this thread?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289626279' post='2186848']
Why are you hijacking this thread?
[/quote]

Comrade, there is clear link. Socialist use DNR's, no? You drive on communal road, to get autoambulance to communal housing, where 400-pound "poor" comrade have blocked arteries, but have no DNR order? Comrade, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism"]Izvestia[/url] says, "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Does not say "all" means of production or allocation of resource. Can be Socialist to degrees. If public road not fit definition, is not Socialist! But public road does fit! Is Socialist! Is pravda. The People allocate up to 50% of your resource, Comrade! The People manage your resource. If advocate theory, are Socialist. I know you frown on the kulaks using definition not first in dictionary, Comrade Winchester, so best to step up and admit, no? Take like Russian bear.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289626279' post='2186848']Why are you hijacking this thread[/quote]

Edited November 13, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289647739' post='2186887']
Comrade, there is clear link. Socialist use DNR's, no? You drive on communal road, to get autoambulance to communal housing, where 400-pound "poor" comrade have blocked arteries, but have no DNR order? Comrade, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism"]Izvestia[/url] says, "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Does not say "all" means of production or allocation of resource. Can be Socialist to degrees. If public road not fit definition, is not Socialist! But public road does fit! Is Socialist! Is pravda. The People allocate up to 50% of your resource, Comrade! The People manage your resource. If advocate theory, are Socialist. I know you frown on the kulaks using definition not first in dictionary, Comrade Winchester, so best to step up and admit, no? Take like Russian bear.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
[img]http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pleases_technoviking.jpg[/img]

[Sternhauser]

You like, yes?

[img]http://asset.soup.io/asset/0274/8320_357e.jpeg[/img]

~Sternhauser

Edited November 15, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

It should be upside down