Are hospitals allowed to ignore a DNR if it has been formally indicated in a legal medical directive?

Follow
Share
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Find Care & Housing
18

Answers

Show:
They should just expire them period.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Too bad that was not in place for my mom, Maybe then hers would have been expired and they would have not tried so hard to kill her.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

States now require a DNR to be reviewed with the patient by an MD on a regular basis, or they are considered expired. In NY, the MD reviews and signs the MOLST every six months.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

In my moms case dnr did mean no treatment for the hospital skin infection even if she got this in the hospital. It was up to the doctors or nurses if they wanted to treat or not. It meant haldol/adivan torture. This kind of horrible treatment could also be used on elders, but it makes it easier if the elder has a dnr or for anyone who has a dnr.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

They don't actually ignore it. I know here on island, even if it's in the chart, you still need to give a copy every time you go in. They are obligated to ask if any family members present object to it. If even one member does object, they will not honor it. I guess it depends on your states laws regarding this. And then what is the hospital's policy.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

DaveIFM My dad and mom had all that in place because they were very well organized. It did not help my mom at all medical staff just did what ever they wanted to they did not care if they were abusing her or neglecting her everything was fine because she had a dnr in place. The dnr even got her life taken away even though she was in good health. That is why I say no to dnrs and legalizing euthanasia. It is already to easy for medical staff to take lives why make it easier.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

That is how it is supposed to be, but that is not always how it is as I have found out the hard way. There is so much neglect and abuse in the medical field especially as soon as they find out there is a dnr. That is why I say they are not safe. People think they can just sue so they are protected, but the only time you can sue is if the patient is still alive and then you have one year (at least in our state) to sue and you get a medical fund put aside to take care of the mistake that medical staff did.It has obvious and or bad . So I would not count on the doctors and staff behaving because patients are protected and medical staff is afraid of getting sued.That never crosses their mind. It has to be very obvious like a sponge left in that caused damage then you may get covered to take care of the infection.Medical staff are safe no matter what they want to do. They would have to be a serial killer and then it still takes years to get caught.They are very well protected, but there is no protection for the patients.PATIENTS ARE NOT PROTECTED.MEDICAL STAFF DO AS THEY PLEASE.We need to change this cause the only medical staff doing a good job would be the ones who have good morals and are decent people and want to do right by people.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

flowgo, a DNR does not affect any treatment other than that which would require intubation or CPR. Patients who are DNR can continue to get chemotherapy, antibiotics, dialysis, or any other appropriate treatments.

If one is seriously ill, the heart will stop for a reason... it's time to let nature take its course.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

DNR means do not resuscitate. It does not mean don't give any care. You can only be resuscitated if you have clinically died, not if you are still alive.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Much safer to have no dnr
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Related
Questions