Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[gometros]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
This is untrue. Often patients will enter emergency care and the health care team will have no knowledge of a DNR, DNI, living will, or other advance directive for the patient. At times, life support is began.

Saying it is untrue does not make it so. You are wrong. Once certain life support measures are in place, they can not legally be removed. That doesn't say it doesn't happen, but a hospital is at risk if they take the chance. Many doctors will tell you that a health care proxy or living will is not sufficient for them to stop treatment, that a DNR order must be attahced to the patients chart for the hospital to take action.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by gometros
Once a peron is on life support, it is against the law for a hospital to remove it, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

My DW and I just signed our updated POA and HPOA documents last week. We live in IL and according to our lawyer, we are able to specify the following language in our HPOA: "I want to have life-support treatment if my doctor and another health care professional agree it could help my condition. I want my doctor to stop any life-support treatment if he/she and another health care professional agree it is not helping my health condition or symptoms."

According to our lawyer, the health care facility personnel have the authority to stop any life-support treatment if instructed to do so by our appointed agents following these specified instructions.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I believe a person can hold all life sacred and worth saving, yet not want "extraordinary measures" performed in order to prolong their lives when the underlying condition is terminal and in the later, more severe stages.

Perhaps we aren't on the same page as to what we define as extraordinary measures. To me, that includes artificial means of support such as ventilators. It wouldn't include antibiotics or any medications to treat a curable condition even though the underlying condition was terminal.

Thanks -- my brain finally engaged ... I understand your point now. Appreciate your patience in explaining it (yet again!).

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
My DW and I just signed our updated POA and HPOA documents last week. We live in IL and according to our lawyer, we are able to specify the following language in our HPOA: "I want to have life-support treatment if my doctor and another health care professional agree it could help my condition. I want my doctor to stop any life-support treatment if he/she and another health care professional agree it is not helping my health condition or symptoms."

According to our lawyer, the health care facility personnel have the authority to stop any life-support treatment if instructed to do so by our appointed agents following these specified instructions.

If I were you, I'd have my attorney be more specific. That statement is too vague and can easily be challenged. It may be possible that various states deal with this issue differently.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by gometros
Saying it is untrue does not make it so. You are wrong. Once certain life support measures are in place, they can not legally be removed. That doesn't say it doesn't happen, but a hospital is at risk if they take the chance. Many doctors will tell you that a health care proxy or living will is not sufficient for them to stop treatment, that a DNR order must be attahced to the patients chart for the hospital to take action.

I'm afraid not. Your statement, weather on purpose or not, is incorrect. Any and all life support measures (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hydration/nutrition, ventilator, and any treatments deemed to be life prolonging) can immediately be withdrawn at the direction of an advance directive.

I'm not sure which "law" or "laws" you are speaking of but you are incorrect.

A DNR has nothing to do with stopping treatment. A DNR states that cardiopulmonary resuscitation will not be implemented if the patient's heart stops or if the patient stops breathing. A DNR would in no way, shape, or form validate the withdraw of treatment as you state.

I spent a year at one of the top ten cancer centers in the U.S. I took part in the Medical Ethics Oversight Committee that tackled these very issues on a weekly basis. Not that this makes me an expert on the subject by any means but geeze...

You need to check your facts!

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by gometros
If I were you, I'd have my attorney be more specific. That statement is too vague and can easily be challenged. It may be possible that various states deal with this issue differently.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

actually, the effect of a DNR, health care proxy, etc. and whether life support can be removed is governed by state law, and varies from state to state.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by gometros
You continue to debate matters to which you have no understanding. DNR issues are more complex than most people realize. There are legal and moral issues dealing with terminally ill patients that you can not simplify by describing it as "taking extraordinary means to extend lives". DNR does not mean life support. All a DNR refers to is resuscitation. Once a peron is on life support, it is against the law for a hospital to remove it, no matter what the patient's wishes were.

Thanks for the lesson, but I know perfectly well what DNR orders are vs life support. I dealt with these very issues less than an year ago in my own family.

You are simply wrong about not being able to remove life supports. It is most certainly not illegal and is done every day in hospitals all over this country under completely legal and ethical conditions.

I agree, you need to check your facts.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by gometros
If I were you, I'd have my attorney be more specific. That statement is too vague and can easily be challenged. It may be possible that various states deal with this issue differently.

Oh my god!

Do you even know what you're talking about? You're giving advice to individuals and are clearly mis-informed on the topic at hand.

A huge number of individuals have advance directives that are never even looked at my an attorney.


Eeyore1954--

I won't pretend to dispense "legal" advice here but there are many great resources you can look to for assistance in advance directives. Your local Hospice organization for one. And, of course, your lawyer.

 

[Van Helsing]

Eeyore1954 - I won't pretend to dispense "legal" advice here but there are many great resources you can look to for assistance in advance directives. Your local Hospice organization for one.

WELL SAID ThreeCircles

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by gometros
If I were you, I'd have my attorney be more specific. That statement is too vague and can easily be challenged. It may be possible that various states deal with this issue differently.

The rules are state specific. Are you an attorney that is licensed to practice law in IL? Do you have any basis for telling Steve that his lawyer is wrong?

Steve reviewed the document with his attorney. I'd certainly assume an attorney in IL knows IL law a lot better than an internet poster from NY.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

as I said, it varies from state to state.

here's a resource for finding the law in your state.

 

[DawnCt1]

I take my chances with the ventilator and when I get old I will invest in my first tatoo, right across my chest in big block letters.
"NO POST!"

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Yes, but don't you just wonder if some of those people parading through are just attending to be able to say that they had been there? I saw a blurb on TV where they showed a lady traipsing through and she was staring at the soldier on guard the whole time. It just seemed a little strange.

You mean kinda like one former President that attended Ron Brown's funeral and was laughing one minute and turned on the waterworks the next when the camera was on him?

 

[dmadman43]

I'm still not understanding this thread.

Clinton is not speaking are Reagan's funeral because Bush is against govt funded stem cell research? That makes no sense at all.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by dmadman43
You mean kinda like one former President that attended Ron Brown's funeral and was laughing one minute and turned on the waterworks the next when the camera was on him?

But just in the eye that was facing the camera. I must say, crying out of one eye is a difficult skill to master.

 

[Bobbles]

Perhaps President Bush could show President Clinton how to do it correctly when he attends a funeral?

Oh that's right! He will be attending one!

 

[Pyg Me]

Originally posted by gometros
There is a huge difference between taking active measures to save someone's life and not using heroic measures to prolong one's life unnecessarily

Not if you are tying to twist facts to "win" arguments.

 

[izzy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'm still not understanding this thread.

Clinton is not speaking are Reagan's funeral because Bush is against govt funded stem cell research? That makes no sense at all.

I was kind of wondering the same thing. How did we get from an article in a questionable publication about Clinton not speaking at Reagan's funeral to a discussion on stem cell research, DNR orders, and life support in general? I'm beginning to think that I need a road map to follow this thread!

 

[cati]

Absolutely NOT. Reagan stood for everything Clinton was NOT.