Nick's Blog

 Through extensive research about this topic, i'm leaning towards having the patients rights taking precedence. In the occasion where a patient is unconscious and unable to give proper direction, a doctor should not take the risk of making legal mistake. Breaching the official DNR orders open doors for the doctor or the hospital receiving legal backlash -- possible lawsuit. It is unfair for a doctor to intervene on a patient's last living wishes or their rights for resuscitation, regardless of their critical condition. However, it definitely is understandable if the a doctor undergoes procedures that prevent irreversible damages to the body and brain.  Why the patient's rights takes precedence is because when considering patient autonomy, it does not only apply to following the DNR order. In previous situations, they may have filed an official DNR order, but it should be confirmed on whether or not they still remain that same mindset with regards to the present situation....

 This topic is one that addressing the controversies and dilemmas that physicians face when the patient in critical condition has a "Do Not Resuscitate" tattoo on the body. In the medical world, the patient rights not to be resuscitated is a decision that they can chose by themselves. This typically requires patient consent and I assume the signing of certain waivers and documents. In this aspect, it addresses the patient autonomy to make any decisions they want for themselves. On the other hand, when an unconscious patient, wheeled into the emergency department, appears and requires critical treatment, what are the doctors supposed to do? The simple oct of not doing anything goes against the doctors medical ethics pillar of beneficence -- Doing good. It's a doctor's job in the emergency department to treat patients and save them in the such situations. So is the doctor supposed to save this person, or not? This topic is one that affects the rights of the patient, the...