<p>Someone above mentioned Good Samaritan laws. It’s my understanding that Good Samaritan laws do not protect a healthcare worker while he is on the job. Someone correct me if that’s not the case.</p>
<p>The more I think about this the more I am bothered… I absolutely agree with the poster who commented on the demeanor of the “nurse” in question. Annoyed, disinterested and a complete lack of empathy come to mind… When asked by the 911 operator if she was just going to stand by and watch that woman suffer without trying to help, her answer was “that’s why we called 911”. HUH? And to assume that woman just needed to go ahead and die because she was 87? My great grandmother lived to be 99, happy and as healthy anyone would expect until the day she died. Should she have given up the last 12 years of her life JUST because she was older than some of you feel comfortable with? Unless it was obvious the woman had a DNR (she didn’t) it was not up to that “nurse” to decide her fate. She could have just as easily handed the phone to someone who was not as concerned with saving their OWN skin and walked away… I just think no matter what the legalities may or may not be, HUMAN ethics and instincts should have taken over. Scary to realize how many people are walking the planet who wouldn’t risk their own skin to save another’s life…</p>
<p>In his last months, my elderly father had a DNR order on file with everyone. He passed away at home, quite peacefully, sitting in our yard. It was exactly the death he would have wanted. Unfortunately, my mother had left to run some errands, and a neighbor (RN) found him slumped over. She called 911, and because he was alone, there was no one there to enforce, or to even show, the DNR order. </p>
<p>By the time my mother was contacted everything that could be done had been done by the ambulance and ER personnel. The efforts to revive him were, as was described upthread, fairly brutal. I believe our neighbor thought he was clearly dead when she found him, but because she called 911, EMTs were obligated to attempt to resuscitate him.</p>
<p>My mother was more upset by what he had had been put through by the EMTs and ER than by his actual death, which had been expected.</p>
<p>^^^ I’m so very sorry that happened to your dad, and I can understand how that could be terribly upsetting to your family. But I’m guessing your neighbor, not knowing his wishes, felt she was doing the right thing. And again… that was NOT the case with this woman. NO DNR in place and a supposed “nurse” who sounded like she could give a flip what happened. Listen to the 911 tape… it is chilling.</p>
<p>I listened to the 911 recording. In the 7 minute phone call, the operator asked the nurse who called to perform CPR. When she refused, the operator repeatly asked the nurse to go find someone else in the building or on the street to come help perform the CPR.The nurse still would not do it. The recording was difficult for me to listen to as a human being.</p>
<p>I find this very difficult to read and I do not understand the legality of it. How on earth can an assisted care facility refuse to assist with the most basic things? CPR is taught to high schoolers. A DNR is a whole other thing. So there are facilities that outright refuse to attempt life saving moves in an emergency? Something is not right here and I hope that it is addressed.</p>
<p>If someone has a DNR goes into a cardiac arrest or other sort of thing that is line with the medical condition he/her has, and does not want over the top measures, that does not mean if that person chokes and needs a Heimlich maneuver or has some other episode that may well be something that s/he can recover from easily, that you let the person die. This why even a DNR can be an issue as there are some people who have no sense and no heart.</p>
<p>Heard again this morning that the deceased woman’s daughter is satisfied with the care her mother received and was aware of the no CPR policy. The 911 call is hard to listen to - but having an elderly relative in a coma, hooked up to a ventilator and feeding tube when they could have died relatively peacefully is no picnic either. </p>
<p>My viewpoint is that it is more likely that CPR would have made no difference in outcome - she would have died anyway - or would have resulted in an elderly person hospitalized in a very poor condition. The likelihood that CPR would have saved her life and returned her to the same level of health she had prior to the incident is probably fairly slim. If the family is not up in arms - there is no reason for anyone else - who does not know the details of her medical condition or her desires for end of life care - to be so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not defending the woman’s actions, but could the reason be the same as the doctors refusing to perform CPR when they are not in the hospital? They don’t want to be sued, because malpractice insurance does not cover these actions. I am not sure if anyone mentioned this up-thread.</p>
<p>I agree, it is hard to listen, but there might be reasons the that woman’s actions.</p>
<p>Interesting distinction between types of facilities:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the family is at peace with it, everyone else should be too. </p>
<p>My grandfather has made it very clear that he does not want cpr. He watched his brother waste away in a veg state and never even wants the chance of that happening. I haven’t the slightest clue whether or not he has a DNR but generally families know wishes better than strangers (us).</p>
<p>Families also have more to gain or lose and I am speaking of monetary gain or loss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that this occurred at an independent living facility really leads me to believe that the “nurse” in question was NOT a nurse. At least I hope so.</p>
<p>The woman who passed away in the story did not have a ‘do not resuscitate’ order. The nurse refused to give CPR citing the assisted living facility’s policy. Then the 911 operator repeatedly asked the nurse to find someone else (ANYONE) to come help and the operator would instruct this person to perform CPR. The nurse still refused to do so.</p>
<p>First of all, I’m taking this whole report with a grain of salt in terms of the facts given. In fact, a whole salt shaker. We don’t know a lot of things and news stories pitch to the sensational to get interest in these things.</p>
<p>However, I do not like the possibilities that this story brings out. There should be the same standard of normal everyday care from an assisted living facility, as there is in real life. If someone collapses for no apparent reason, or a reason one can’t say for sure, some simple first aid steps should be administered as one would expect anywhere. The idea if someone’s iced tea goes down the wrong way, and they are going to let that person choke due to the no CPR rule, is not something that goes down well with me at all. There are extraordinary measures and then there is just common care. And I really don’t care what the family thinks. For all we know, they may want the person gone. I wouldn’t want to be eating or spending much time in a place that has actual no CPR policy, something in place that says they won’t do it. I’ll take my chances where there just might be someone who can and will, not someplace that specifically excludes it.</p>
<p>I find the willingness of some posters to use the law/policy as a justification for this woman’s actions chilling. Even generally law-abiding people must recognize that there might be bad laws that one is morally obligated to break, and even generally good ones that become bad in extreme situations.</p>
<p>I also have a problem with the idea that anyone can judge, in the absence of a DNR, that this woman was better off without the CPR, but that isn’t even the biggest issue here. What if a day care center had a similar policy? Would people defend a worker who refused to perform the Heimlich Maneuver on a choking 4-year old? The same concerns about liability apply in that case.</p>
<p>There are times when you just have to let human decency take over and worry about the potential financial and legal consequences later.</p>
<p>There’s a huge difference between an elderly person and a very young child.</p>
<p>If I collapsed say, in a restaurant, no one has a legal duty to do anything to help me. You can’t expect people to know the ins and outs of the Good Samaritan statutes that protect passersby from liability. People don’t want to become involved and potentially expose themselves to liability.</p>
<p>This woman in the AL home could have lost her job if she acted. She might not be a ‘nurse’ but a minimum wage employee with children at home to provide for. No where in the story does it even say whether or not she was trained in CPR. We also don’t know the medical history of the woman who died. CPR may not have done any good. I wouldn’t be too quick to judge.</p>
<p>I agree with Apprentice Prof entirely. What the heck does age have to do with it. I agree that there is no legal duty to help someone who has collapsed, but there is a moral one. </p>
<p>I am not as concerned with the actions or inactions of the reported nurse as much as the policies of the the assisted care facility. Even in a hospice setting there are certain times cpr or other simple help techniques are the right thing to do. To have a rule prohibiting them is what I find outrageous. To specifically refuse to administer something and have it in writing for ANY PLACE is something that would be unusual. That it’s an ASSISTED CARE setting makes it even more puzzling and frightening. </p>
<p>How many would eat at restaurants or go to other facilities that specifically say that no CPR would be permitted if anything should happen and that all that would be done is someone stay with you until emergency personnel arrives? It’s one thing if that is a possibility but to be a certainty since no employee is permitted to intervene? Huh??? We do take chances but that is a certainty in an area where we do feel we at least have some chance. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if the CPR would have done any good. The part that bothers me is that it is an option that employyes there are not permitted to use. You’re safer in most restaurants than on those grounds because that place prohibits that life saving maneuver whereas most places do not. What a thing to prohibit on a general, wide scale basis!</p>
<p>This is a bit of sensational reporting. It really is a ridiculous venture to administer CPR to the very old.</p>
<p>Even my local gym has an automated external defibrillator accessible. Are these devices comparable to CPR? They are supposed to be easy to use, at the press of a button the machine automatically determines whether a shock would benefit the victim. Surely an independent living facility for seniors has such a device? Perhaps not.</p>