- This topic has 158 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Just curious. Which of the sheva mitzvos was violated by the “nurse” that she is being labeled a murderer. Callous, despicable, heartless ok. Murderer?
She’s definitely an idiot. And a heartless one at that.
Dont judge her. I know what its like. I understand pulling of the cord. These people suffer and someone who is a nurse wants to end that suffering however she can.
Whether or not she should be judged harshly really depends on whether there was a DNR (official or not).
I know what it’s like- I am on that side of things. Don’t judge her. You are all looking at it from the outside end of view, but do you know what’s it’s like to have a patient who is at the end of his life, and suffering. All you want to do is pray that he dies and the sooner the better. Nurses want to get rid of people’s suffering and if a patient is at the end of his life, that’s the way to do it.
2scents -“However, in this case the PT was dying, can a company prohibit a staff member of doing CPR on someone?”
What do you mean prohibit? Put a gun to her/his head? No, they didn’t do that. Could she/he have lost his/her job? Probably.
PBA -“It was bad enough when the forced conscripts of the Nazi’s said that. You would extend it to any employee?
Any employee would break the rules if it was something they cared about. If it was their nephew being assaulted 300 feet away, you better believe they would go save him. If it was this nurse’s mother, you better believe she’d have done CPR or at least tried to find someone to do it.”
You are correct only on the fact – if it was s/o they cared about.
If you read my post on the article -I was saying this callous lack of regard for life has nothing to do with the employee nor is it the responsibility of the company -this responsibility lies directly with our Govs. and I explained it. Is our Gov. similar in ways to Nazi Germany? Perhaps; but stop pointing the finger at this employee. I always heard -when one finger points out -four point back. The blame lies with the Gov. and the public who voted them into office.
Ask any Poisek if you have to give up your job to try to save s/o’s life and I don’t think they will answer yes.
If you think morality is bad now in the US – wait until Obamacare comes in!
Realtalk:
True, some people really suffer a lot when they’re sick and weak. But others, a lot of others, have gone on to live quite a while after getting CPR. This is not for humans to decide.
realtalk – I completely understand what you are saying. Even if we, ourselves wouldn’t make that decision, and even if it is the wrong moral decision, I completely understand what you are saying. Not every non-Torah person who lets someone die is cruel, heartless, nazi-ish etc. Sometimes they are just people who imagine that no human could ever want to be alive when they are no longer productive and they feel that this is the natural and humanistic thing to do. I have seen it, heard it and experienced it. And I have seen many sharp witted, fully independent elderly people sign DNR’s behind their children’s backs to make sure they go when “it’s time”.
That doesn’t mean I believe it is a human choice, it means I believe that human’s feel it is their choice.
DNR’s are not murder. When my mother was dying in the hospital, she gad been unconscious for 10 days, her weight had dropped from 110 to 80 pounds and her blood pressure had dropped to 80 over 40. The dr recommended a DNR because , even if he could bring her back from a Code, given her low blood pressure and frailty, he wasn’t sure if she would last 24 hourst. Doing CPR would involve exposing my mothers upper body while the dr pounded her chest. At best, she wouldn’t feel the pain; at worst she would spend her last hours in terrible pain from the broken ribs and embarrassment from a man seeing her undressed.
Pulling the plug is against halacha , a DNR is not, especially when I asked my rov and he agreed after consulting with the dr. My mother coded and passed before I could actually sign the DNR or CPR could be done
lesschumras -“My mother coded and passed before I could actually sign the DNR or CPR could be done”
This I don’t understand – If there was no DNR – why wasn’t there CPR?
2scents -“it means that it is not allowed. So in fact the company prohibited her from doing CPR.”
If this is the def – then they did prohibit it.
Real Talk,
I absolutely understand where you are coming from. And the halacha does not require the resuscitation of a patient that is suffering and does not want to continue to live.
However, all that is only relevant if, in fact the patient was someone who did not want to be resuscitated. If the patient wanted to be resuscitated than it is truly awful for someone to let them die.
2scents -“She coldly refused to give over the phone to someone else,”
Sounds like a novel – how do you know it was “coldly”, maybe it was “warmly”?
“she did not CARE that a life is ending in front of her eyes,”
Maybe she did care, but had to do what she did anyway?
“this is a life that MIGHT have been saved should act differently.”
It could have possibly been saved, but she couldn’t do anything differently than she did.
This is the policies in these facilities all over the US. They make these policies due to the fact of the Gov. laws that apply to them. In order to change the policies – you first have to change the laws!
benignuman -“And the halacha does not require the resuscitation of a patient that is suffering and does not want to continue to live.”
As a general rule – you are wrong. Yes, in some cases where a pt. is suffering the Rov will permit a DNR -in some cases not. The pt’s. desire is Not given that much consideration. Every case has to be judged up individually! That’s why there are Rabbonim that deal specifically with End of Life issues. It’s Not for your LOR to decide these questions!
Health,
The general rule is that where the patient’s wishes are reasonable a DNR is permissible. If the patient is being unreasonable then a DNR is not permissible. The patient’s desire is given great consideration.
But yes, each case is decided individually. The reason you should always ask a Rov that specializes in these issues is because they have the combination of medical and halachic knowledge to decide whether the patient is being reasonable.
I never said she was right, I was just saying that as a nurse myself, I understand her and I was just pointing out that there’s another side to the story. There is a reason that nursing isn’t advised until after marriage for girls, and not just because of the yichud issues
You should quit being a nurse, if you think it is ok to let a woman die on the floor in front of you while the 911 dispatcher is begging you to do CPR, because you have decided her life is no longer worth living.
benignuman -“Health, The general rule is that where the patient’s wishes are reasonable a DNR is permissible. If the patient is being unreasonable then a DNR is not permissible. The patient’s desire is given great consideration. Etc.”
Whatever floats your boat. You said the exact same thing as me but by twisting things around. As long as you got the last word. I’m more interested in the truth than the last word.
realtalk -“There is a reason that nursing isn’t advised until after marriage for girls, and not just because of the yichud issues”
So what’s the reason – I’m clueless?
Does this rule apply to other Med Prof, because I’m not a nurse (too many women, not enough men there), but I’m not married?
Oh, but maybe not – because I once was married and you said girls – & I’m not a girl?
“Yes, in some cases where a pt. is suffering the Rov will permit a DNR -in some cases not. The pt’s. desire is Not given that much consideration. Every case has to be judged up individually! That’s why there are Rabbonim that deal specifically with End of Life issues. It’s Not for your LOR to decide these questions!”
Health – I agree – but the point is, a Rabbi and posek may allow a DNR when it is halachically permissible, but will hardly ever approve a DNR unless the patient has made clear his/her wish and intention not to be resuscitated. I have no idea if the patient (I assume a nonjew) signed a DNR when entering the facility, and (if she did) whether that was what she wanted to be done or if she was factually coerced (ie lack of similar facilities with a different policy). This seems to me a relevant point.
If she wanted to be left alone and die peacefully, I can respect that (also, it’s usually less of a problem halachically, because once we start life-support aggressive measures, by the time doctors realize they are futile, they are already in place and respirators outside Jewish hospitals don’t usually have the 24 hours button); but if so, why call emergency services? Why divert essential services who might have been needed elsewhere? Why give grief to the human being who answered the telephone and what did he do to deserve having to stand by impotently while someone was dying, he will keep dreaming and daydreaming this for years, possibly for the rest of his life. The nurse should have held her hand in silence or saying whatever she felt was fitting to the circumstance. Regardless of religion or lack thereof, it seems to me it’s totally disrespectful to stay needlessly on the phone while another human being is dying.
If it was not what the old lady wanted, then it’s not murder, but it surely is despicable. I don’t care to divide the responsibility among the nurse, the facility administration, the government, the voters – it’s despicable. May those people care for each others, and may we and our loved ones never meet them when we are unwell or “simply” very old.
PS Of course I fully realize an employee, if caught, jeopardizes and sometimes loses their job by not “following protocol”. There are many nurses who are unafraid of breach of protocol in regards to (at best) increasing certain drugs’ dosage against medical orders, and as a side effect hastening death.
“Whatever floats your boat. You said the exact same thing as me but by twisting things around. As long as you got the last word. I’m more interested in the truth than the last word.”
Haha. Projection at its finest.
daniela -“Health – I agree – but the point is, a Rabbi and posek may allow a DNR when it is halachically permissible, but will hardly ever approve a DNR unless the patient has made clear his/her wish and intention not to be resuscitated.”
You seem to have some knowledge, but you are still ignorant.
Don’t get influenced by other posts like the guy benign-something. Many DNR decisions are made without the pt’s wishes known. Most people don’t want to think about these issues with regards to their end of life so they don’t make any decisions in this regard, but they all of a sudden become sick and are in a coma. A lot of these pts. will get DNR’s both medically & Halachically.
“If she wanted to be left alone and die peacefully, I can respect that (also, it’s usually less of a problem halachically, because once we start life-support aggressive measures, by the time doctors realize they are futile, they are already in place and respirators outside Jewish hospitals don’t usually have the 24 hours button);”
I have a few problems with this paragraph. If we decided that the efforts are futile why did we (medical personnel) put the pt. on a respirator? I never heard of this 24 hr. button -what is it?
“but if so, why call emergency services? Why divert essential services who might have been needed elsewhere? Why give grief to the human being who answered the telephone and what did he do to deserve having to stand by impotently while someone was dying, he will keep dreaming and daydreaming this for years, possibly for the rest of his life.”
The last part is a exaggeration. Yes, this I could never understand when I was doing EMS. The family gets a DNR, but then they call us when an emergency happens. Lack of education somewhere.
“The nurse should have held her hand in silence or saying whatever she felt was fitting to the circumstance.”
It was the nurse’s job to call for help -which she did. Maybe she did hold her hand afterwards?
“Regardless of religion or lack thereof, it seems to me it’s totally disrespectful to stay needlessly on the phone while another human being is dying.”
Noone stood needlessly by the phone -the nurse called -she did her job. The dispatcher answered -he/she did their job.
“If it was not what the old lady wanted, then it’s not murder, but it surely is despicable.”
And if she did want to, but had no medical history -then it’s Not despicable acc. to Torah? It surely is!
“I don’t care to divide the responsibility among the nurse, the facility administration, the government, the voters – it’s despicable. May those people care for each others, and may we and our loved ones never meet them when we are unwell or “simply” very old.”
Sorry, you seem to want to divide the blame amongst e/o -this simply is Not fair or true. The Torah does Not require you to lose your job or be sued if you now decide to break protocol. The blame lies squarely on the Gov. and those that put them there.
“PS Of course I fully realize an employee, if caught, jeopardizes and sometimes loses their job by not “following protocol”. There are many nurses who are unafraid of breach of protocol in regards to (at best) increasing certain drugs’ dosage against medical orders, and as a side effect hastening death.”
I don’t know if you are in the medical field or not, but you definitely are very ignorant about it. We take something called Medical Ethics. It Is the responsibility of a nurse to point out mistakes that have been ordered and to question those orders. Any nurse that willfully gives a lethal dose of medications has committed murder -legally and Halachically. Sometimes if you question an order – the prescriber says -“No, I am right”. At this point recheck your info and if you know you’re right – you are required to go over that person’s head. By not doing so – will get you fired and sued. I don’t know where you got these misconceptions from, but I hope I cleared them up.
This has nothing to do with DNR.
Under the law, if she would have done CPR she would not be covered by the Good Samaritan law. How many of you when push come to shove would risk everything for that? It’s very nice to be a shalosh shudis quarterback but we don’t know the entire story.
There is a famous Mishno in Pirkei Ovos which states:-
Al Todun Es Chavercho Af sheTaGi’a liMekomo;
Don’t judge thy pal, until thou art standing in his shoes.
truthsharer- if she’s a certified nurse why wouldn’t she be covered by the Good Samaritan laws? They don’t only apply when you are officially on duty.
The nurse would have been covered by Good Samaritan laws in regard to not being liable for damages of all sorts that arise from her intervention and had she been fired, she could have sued and likely won, but realistically, she would not have been fired at all in connection to the incident, but rather, she would have been let go with some pretext in a few weeks. Which would have been impossible to challenge and also one’s name becomes “known” and one is not offered work, and proving discrimination is next to impossible. Had she done CPR against the employer’s protocol, perhaps she was better off resigning and giving interviews to the media, which would have had good chances to land her a job at a facility with different policies – but likely, not close to home.
I am aware that we would not be required to jeopardize our job, but still it is despicable. A normal person would at the very least feel bad about it. Now let me ask you a question: suppose it hadn’t been a human, suppose it had been a dog. Suppose the dog had choked on something and a trained person can easily get the dog out of trouble; instead the trained person calls a veterinary hospital requesting they send someone, and refuses to help the dog in any way, refuses even to ask a passer-by to help. Can you imagine the outrage? The press? The TV? But let us put aside what people think, suppose it had happened to us – on shabbat and no non-jew in sight – it died right in front of us, of course we let the dog die, but would we not feel at least a tiny bit of sorrow at the dog’s fate which reminds us of (human) mortality?
A 24hr button (not sure how exactly is called) is a timer which beeps an alarm after 24hr it has been operating. Staff can push a button and reset the counter. Or, if nothing is done, the machine shuts itself off after, I think, 6 or 12 more hours. This allows doctors to set up life support measures and if the patient is stabilized but has otherwise bleak prospects, the family and their rabbi can decide not to continue with efforts; if the patient looks like is responding well, he/she can stay on the respirator (or other life-support) as long as necessary. Such a device is available in Jewish hospitals but I don’t think is very common elsewhere. If the problem is unavailability of the device, a normal timer plug can help. If the problem is that staff is not going to accommodate the patient’s and family’s wishes and beliefs, there is no easy solution.
And please give me a break about ethical committees. Even nazis had them (and to their credit, the “program” with regards to handicapped people was shut down pretty quickly when such ethical committees objected). I am not going to rely on ethical committees, what has some chance to work is talking to the staff and doing what is necessary. Sure some people would be all up in arms about violation of regulations and rules, but I am afraid they are the same people who say that the nurse was forced to act like she did, and we have to live with it, or at most, write a complaint letter to the president and to the local congressperson. I don’t accept this. The nurse was not forced! Not even SS were forced! Those who declined to do, were not courtmartialed, were not demoted, were simply transfered to normal army units (oh yes, riskier job than the other one).
Also, please reread, I never said “give a lethal dose of medication”. This may well happen occasionally, but (if discovered) it is sanctioned, and besides, not even Dr Kevorkian did that (he offered a device which allowed the patient to suicide: he did not activate it). In any case that one is a totally different discussion and has to do with murder. I was talking about medical personnel who are uncomfortable with some people’s suffering or supposed suffering – a sedated old person in an ICU does not feel pain, but is difficult to watch and is disturbing, especially for those who share a certain view of life and death – and I was talking about medical personnel who “avoid delaying” the unavoidable, in most cases feeling good about it. By the way, “the unavoidable” is unavoidable for everyone, and no one can say how long they will live nor if we will be healthy or disabled (we can have an accident this very day) but this sobering thought does not seem to cross everyone’s mind. It should.
She was not employed as a nurse, so under California law she wouldn’t be covered.
“Good Samaritan” laws do not refer to people performing CPR or other emergency measures as part of their job, there are other laws that regulate that, they have to do with passers-by and with immediate life danger situations. They usually also protect medical professionals who assist while off-duty and without expectance of compensation, but I can’t recall California cases that went to court (I recall one in Texas with a doctor assisting in childbirth and being sued for negligency, he won the case)
California Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Health and Safety Code > California Health and Safety Code Section 1799.102
1799.102. (a) No person who in good faith, and not for
compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the
scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting
from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not
include emergency departments and other places where medical care is
usually offered. This subdivision applies only to the medical, law
enforcement, and emergency personnel specified in this chapter.
(b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage other
individuals to volunteer, without compensation, to assist others in
need during an emergency, while ensuring that those volunteers who
provide care or assistance act responsibly.
(2) Except for those persons specified in subdivision (a), no
person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency
medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an
emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or
omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence
or willful or wanton misconduct. The scene of an emergency shall not
include emergency departments and other places where medical care is
usually offered. This subdivision shall not be construed to alter
existing protections from liability for licensed medical or other
personnel specified in subdivision (a) or any other law.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to change any
existing legal duties or obligations, nor does anything in this
section in any way affect the provisions in Section 1714.5 of the
Civil Code, as proposed to be amended by Senate Bill 39 of the
2009-10 Regular Session of the Legislature.
(d) The amendments to this section made by the act adding
subdivisions (b) and (c) shall apply exclusively to any legal action
filed on or after the effective date of that act.
She was not employed as a nurse, so under California law she wouldn’t be covered.
The 911 call-taker informed the nurse at more than one point in the conversation that she was not liable and EMS was taking responsibility.
Can a 911 operator legally do that? Would you risk it?
In all the discussion so far, everyone has failed to mention one crucial ingredient.
DUTY TO ACT. In order to be sued for negligence (not speaking about a civil suit), there must have been a duty for the negligent person to have acted and provided care. Being that this was not a medical facility, or a full-fledged assisted living facility (according to the news reports), the person who identified themselves as a nurse had absolutely no duty to treat the woman on the floor.
If a person is in a hospital, or an ambulance responds to an emergency and they refuse to treat anyone, then they have been negligent. But this ‘nurse’ had no duty to act, therefore she could not be found guilty of gross negligence in not providing care.
As far as the ethical and moral aspect here, I would like to think that many of us would have acted differently, however I would like to shed some light into why this nurse refused to help.
Much of today’s medicine is practiced and provided with only one goal in mind – don’t sue me. There are millions of dollars wasted on unnecessary tests, examinations, and screenings for the simple purpose of not worrying about getting sued. A disproportionate amount of health care providers’ time is spent on DOCUMENTATION – to cover themselves in case of a suit.
Providing CPR against company policy, were something to go wrong and the CPR caused an injury or was unsuccessful or something, it would have easily resulted in a suit against the facility and the nurse for providing unauthorized care to the patient. It would be somewhat similar to providing care in a DNR situation. In that, care was provided counter to the patient’s instructions.
And finally, it is a bit extreme to call this person a murderer, if you realize that the statistics of a CPR recipient walking out of the hospital are extremely low especially for geriatric patients.
The policy in USA (and most countries) is that once you call EMS, they take over the care, and one can not cancel a call (i.e. change their mind about no longer having a desire for assistance). So the nurse would have been protected: not only by the “samaritan” provision but also by the fact she would have been “following orders”. She could have argued that she called 911 according to protocol and afterwards they directed her to do so-and-so, which EMS can do even in a doctor’s office (let alone in an assisted living facility), until care is handed over to the emergency dept of a hospital.
I understand, as I have already written, the next available pretext would likely have been used to let her go.
In regards to “duty to act”, California sought to introduce that in the legislation, even for laypeople. This was in response to public opinion pressure, something terrible happened and was in the news for many weeks. It was not done because legal experts advised it would have been very difficult to enforce and would have punished only *unlucky* people among those who couldn’t care less about a fellow human’s life.
If some aggressive lawyers’ office contacts the deceased’s family and they smell the money and sue the nurse for refusing to follow the dispatcher’s orders, if this starts to get too many headlines and the assisted living facility fires her claiming she damaged their public image, it will not be me who sheds tears.
2scents -“Company Policy might prohibit (remember prohibit..) from doing CPR, however being that she is a nurse and trained in resuscitation, this makes her un-human.”
I can’t agree with your assessment of “un-human”, unless this applies to almost e/o in the US. She was prevented from helping this sick person due to the company’s policy. And these policies were created due to the Gov’s laws. You can find fault with the laws, but not with s/o who feels they must listen to these laws!
I’ll give you an example. I’ll put it in your supposed line of work. You frequently are called to a house with a sick Frum elderly person. The chilren are Not Frum, but have gotten this person a DNR. You asked a Poisek, a Boki in DNR’s, and said no way is this elderly allowed to have one. You are now called by the maid for an arrest, but upon arrival you’re presented with a DNR, would you now go ahead and resuscitate? And even if you would, would you call s/o else who is afraid to be sued and their squad sued, amongst other punishments, and therefore refuses to resuscitate “un-human”?
daniela -“The nurse would have been covered by Good Samaritan laws in regard to not being liable for damages of all sorts that arise from her intervention and had she been fired, she could have sued and likely won,”
You sound like a lawyer or legal student -which one?
No she wouldn’t be covered and I’ll show you this in my next post.
“but realistically, she would not have been fired at all in connection to the incident, but rather, she would have been let go with some pretext in a few weeks. Which would have been impossible to challenge and also one’s name becomes “known” and one is not offered work, and proving discrimination is next to impossible. Had she done CPR against the employer’s protocol, perhaps she was better off resigning and giving interviews to the media, which would have had good chances to land her a job at a facility with different policies – but likely, not close to home.”
She won’t find work because they all have the exact same policies.
Perhaps medical law is Not your specialty?
“I am aware that we would not be required to jeopardize our job, but still it is despicable.”
I can’t agree with your assessment of “despicable”, unless this applies to almost e/o in the US. She was prevented from helping this sick person due to the company’s policy. And these policies were created due to the Gov’s laws. You can find fault with the laws, but not with s/o who feels they must listen to these laws!
“A normal person would at the very least feel bad about it.”
And how do you know that she didn’t? Are you G-d? Are you a mind reader? So the rest that you wrote is mute.
“A 24hr button (not sure how exactly is called) is a timer which beeps an alarm after 24hr it has been operating. Staff can push a button and reset the counter. Or, if nothing is done, the machine shuts itself off after, I think, 6 or 12 more hours. This allows doctors to set up life support measures and if the patient is stabilized but has otherwise bleak prospects, the family and their rabbi can decide not to continue with efforts; if the patient looks like is responding well, he/she can stay on the respirator (or other life-support) as long as necessary. Such a device is available in Jewish hospitals but I don’t think is very common elsewhere. If the problem is unavailability of the device, a normal timer plug can help. If the problem is that staff is not going to accommodate the patient’s and family’s wishes and beliefs, there is no easy solution.”
I’m not familiar with this timer -is this something that Israeli hospitals have? Maybe the purpose of the timer is for Shabbos use of the ventilator? I don’t know what it has to do with removing a pt. from the vent. I think you are getting two things mixed up. If s/o acc. to you can’t unplug the machine because it’s killing -setting a timer is no different. And anyway if s/o doesn’t have this timer, but doesn’t want to unplug the machine -all they have to do is wait till maintenance time -where the machine is shut off and not put them back on afterwards. Maintenance is at least once a day -sometimes more.
“And please give me a break about ethical committees. Even nazis had them (and to their credit, the “program” with regards to handicapped people was shut down pretty quickly when such ethical committees objected).”
I wasn’t talking about committees. I said they learn Ethics in school. I find it ironic that a legal student or lawyer is lecturing about ethics. I personally have found lawyers and Judges to be the most unethical people around. With your comparison to the SS -this doesn’t even deserve a response.
“I was talking about medical personnel who are uncomfortable with some people’s suffering or supposed suffering – a sedated old person in an ICU does not feel pain, but is difficult to watch and is disturbing, especially for those who share a certain view of life and death”
I see nothing wrong with sedating a pt. so they don’t feel pain!
“and I was talking about medical personnel who “avoid delaying” the unavoidable, in most cases feeling good about it. By the way, “the unavoidable” is unavoidable for everyone, and no one can say how long they will live nor if we will be healthy or disabled (we can have an accident this very day) but this sobering thought does not seem to cross everyone’s mind. It should.”
I have no idea what you just posted.
If we are aware that someone’s children have signed a DNR which does not faithfully represent the person’s wishes, but rather the family’s wishes, we know what theoretically we have to do – according to the law of the land. We have to let authorities know (right now, not when the person is in arrest). Secular law is far from perfect but it has provisions for these situations. If the patient is fully of sound mind, he/she will state or write down his wishes for medical care and EOL in front of the required witnesses; otherwise the court will appoint a guardian who will be in charge of deciding, after having consulted the family and the rabbi or whoever else the patient indicates he trusts. Most ignore this law despite it being there. Is it Obama’s fault too?
I would not call the nurse nor the hypotetical person in Health’s examples “un-human”, but one can not blame their own decisions on someone else always. Choices usually come at a price.
daniela -“(a) No person who in good faith, and not for
compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the
scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.”
There it is in black & white -“other places where medical care is usually offered.” You don’t think the lawyer sharks will argue that an assisted living building is a place where medical care is offered?
“This subdivision applies only to the medical, law enforcement, and emergency personnel specified in this chapter.
(2) Except for those persons specified in subdivision (a), no
The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.”
Again black & white.
“This subdivision shall not be construed to alter existing protections from liability for licensed medical or other
personnel specified in subdivision (a) or any other law.”
“The policy in USA (and most countries) is that once you call EMS, they take over the care, and one can not cancel a call (i.e. change their mind about no longer having a desire for assistance). So the nurse would have been protected: not only by the “samaritan” provision but also by the fact she would have been “following orders”. She could have argued that she called 911 according to protocol and afterwards they directed her to do so-and-so, which EMS can do even in a doctor’s office (let alone in an assisted living facility), until care is handed over to the emergency dept of a hospital.”
I’m sorry – Miss legal student or lawyer -you know nothing about Medical law. The only one that this employee has to listen to is her company. There is no magic. EMS takes over care of the pt. -they have No legal right over any other Medical person. They can’t give orders to Doctors or anyone else. She is under her own Medical Authority. Once she breaks that – she can be sued for anything under the sun and her insurance won’t cover her -since she broke the policy on purpose. I suggest you read up on EMS and the law. There is a legal group called Page, Wolfberg & Wirth, LLC, that specialize in this type of law, that you can contact.
They have a website.
Right now, you are bordering on Malpractice. This is just an anon. forum, but I hope in real life you don’t give this as legal advice!
“If some aggressive lawyers’ office contacts the deceased’s family and they smell the money and sue the nurse for refusing to follow the dispatcher’s orders, if this starts to get too many headlines and the assisted living facility fires her claiming she damaged their public image, it will not be me who sheds tears.”
You are in a dream world!
Ver Bin Ich -“Much of today’s medicine is practiced and provided with only one goal in mind – don’t sue me. There are millions of dollars wasted on unnecessary tests, examinations, and screenings for the simple purpose of not worrying about getting sued. A disproportionate amount of health care providers’ time is spent on DOCUMENTATION – to cover themselves in case of a suit.”
You’re right it is. And this is the Gov.’s fault. That’s why it’s just being PC making something called Obamacare -promising something for nothing. Nothing in this world is for free.
If you want to make affordable medical care -the country must revamp the Suing laws! So right now the only thing you can cut to make it cheaper is the medical care itself. Need a MRI? Wait 6 months like they do in some parts of Canada.
daniela -“If we are aware that someone’s children have signed a DNR which does not faithfully represent the person’s wishes, but rather the family’s wishes, we know what theoretically we have to do – according to the law of the land. We have to let authorities know (right now, not when the person is in arrest). Secular law is far from perfect but it has provisions for these situations. If the patient is fully of sound mind, he/she will state or write down his wishes for medical care and EOL in front of the required witnesses; otherwise the court will appoint a guardian who will be in charge of deciding,”
C’mon now -let’s say she has Dementia so the kids are her legal guardians’. And she didn’t write a statement prior to her dementia about her future desires regarding health -care. But the Rov still says No DNR -so my case stands. You are looking to Nit-pick – WHY?
Once a girl gets married she needs to ask shailos to a rav and she has more of an idea what to ask and what could be a problem.
I never said that I would let someone die- I just said I understand her and don’t judge her!!!!!!!
realtalk – I think that if s/o has a choice, not like in this case, but their decision won’t affect them either way, yes they should be denounced if they decided Not to help for No reason!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.