The Case A DNR Tattoo - case study PDF

Preview

Summary

case study...

Description

Ethics Oct 9th 2020 DNR Tattoo The central ethical issue in the following case is the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) tattoo itself. Regardless of the country of origin, legally and ethically that tattoo is not sufficient in guiding the medical care. These types of tattoos do not include a witness or a notary to complete legal documentation and, therefore, cannot be considered as an example of consent. Also, DNR tattoo is not revealing sufficient information on what exactly it means, thus, confusions may still arise as to whether the patient meant no chest compressions, no vasopressors or no intubation. On the other hand, tattoo regret is common (Vearrier 2018). According to the case, the patient was presented without identification or family members, therefore, the interested parties are the patient and the health care team. Emergency physicians, overall, tend to stick with a very important ethical principle when it comes to withholding and withdrawing certain treatment approaches. In circumstances similar to the following case, I think it is ethically acceptable to proceed with life-saving interventions regardless of the patient's wishes. As a future physician, I would not hesitate to save an individual’s life regardless of the circumstances but with respect to the moderness of our society. With the new technological inventions in the current era, there is no doubt that there would come a time where DNR could transform into an electronic chip version that would hold all the necessary information required when facing similar circumstances. But for now, the only priority physicians should focus on is how to save lives no matter what the place and origins are. Health care treatment and patient care is a universal language regardless of the country and place of origin. One can argue the legitimacy of the DNR as a legal written documentation that is valid in many states, and that providers should proceed with respecting the patients wishes. This draws the level of misconception and misinterpretation of DNR within our communities. Many states do approve DNR as a legal and valid document but only in the case of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). But the law only contains a legal written and/or oral document which is very different from simply a tattoo (Musacchio WSNA). The complications within our everyday life can strengthen my argument in why health care providers should proceed with life-saving approaches. Though in some cases the DNR tattoo could be one's ultimate wish, we should also take into consideration other aspects that lead to that decision. The financial background and mental health of an individual could help with the case. A vivid example could be whether the patient initially got the tattoo with a peaceful-mind state of being or simply due to depression and mental instability. Also did the patient later regret the tattoo but couldn’t afford or feared the pains of the removal process of DNR. No reasonable solutions are good enough that could be offered in the following case but to save the patient’s

life. Therefore, emergency health care providers must take necessary approaches when faced with a DNR tattoo situation.

Citations

Do-Not-Resuscitate Tattoos: Are They Valid? (2018, April 10). Retrieved October 09, 2020, from https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not-resuscitate-tattoos-are-they-valid/

Musacchio, J. (2018, June 25). Patient's "do not resuscitate" tattoo sparks debate. Retrieved October 09, 2020, from https://www.wsna.org/news/2018/patients-do-not-resuscitatetattoo-sparks-debate...