Posted by ~gc~ [polly] on March 28, 1999 at 18:16:08 {y5tAMziUMMJU3Krpd7GsMWjZREPDAWGQ2}:
In Reply to: *Dr. Jack's conviction posted by Gary on March 27, 1999 at 22:27:03:
Hi gary,
You said:
"They don't want their loved ones to suffer until the inevitable,
and doctors allow patient's to die all the time who have "DNR" status. Isn't "DNR" sort of euthenasia?"
A DNR does not hasten death nor does it reduce suffering. DNR stands for Do Not Rescuscitate. It is only performed after a "clinical death". This means that the patient's heart has stopped beating. The DNR order is essentially an order that prevents rescuscitation methods, for example CPR. I'll give you an example. If a 96 year old patient dies of natural causes, this order prevents medical staff from attempting to revive the patient through heroic measures. Another example would be a terminally ill cancer patient. Without a DNR order, the medical staff is obligated to attempt rescuscitation on the patient when the patient eventually (in due course) succumbs from the disease.
Here is a quote I found in a review
of the 1991 self determination act (Rev Soc Cardiol Estado de S�o Paulo 1997;1)
RSCESP (72594)-579):
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care are meant to reverse premature death. They
should restore the process
of living, not prolong the process of dying. When people reach the end of life, continued resuscitative efforts are
inappropriate, futile, undignified and demeaning to both the patient and the rescuers.
~gc~