Source:The Journal of Emergency Medicine
Author(s): Kenneth V. Iserson
BackgroundCritically ill or injured emergency department or prehospital patients who lack decision-making capacity sometimes present with a non-standard advance directive, such as a “Do Not Resuscitate” tattoo or medallion. Emergency clinicians must immediately address the question of whether to withhold treatment based on what may or may not be a valid patient directive.DiscussionAdvance directives have been standardized for a good reason. Emergency department or prehospital healthcare providers must be able to immediately interpret and act on them without needing a legal interpretation. When faced with non-standard directives, physicians can follow them, ignore them, or simply use them as an additional piece of information about the individual’s wishes for some situations at one point in his or her life. Absent the patient’s input or that of aknowledgeable surrogate, both the patient’s initial reasons for their non-standard directive and his or her present wishes concerning resuscitation cannot be independently known. Therefore, healthcare providers must initiate treatment while they buy time, attempt to return the patient to lucidity, and search for probative information regarding their current wishes concerning medical treatment. Without such additional information, the moral weight will always favor initiating treatment, since withholding treatment is often irreversible and any treatment instituted can later be withdrawn.
from Emergency Medicine via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2JvX7pA
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου