This is so shocking it is unbelievable. An on duty nurse at a senior's residence in the U.S. refused to perform CPR on an elderly resident and allowed her to die. Apparently, this is to comply with the home's policy (and U.S. law?).
Refusing CPR
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
- Status
Was the resident conscious? Did the resident refuse aid? Here in Canada (I imagine it's the same in the U.S.) a first aider must have the permission of the ailing person in order to be able to assist them (unless of course if that person is unconscious). Sounds like many key elements of your story are missing.
Hey, freespirit what Rocks said is accurate, it's on every news channel. Shocking indeed that a nurse would refuse to do CPR.
Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmJBFVagD2E
Sorry, I haven't watched the news tonight. That is indeed shocking then!! But I'm still confused........her refusal to do CPR complied with the home's policy?
I know that if the average person start CPR you are legally obliged to continue until relieved by a qualified person or a doctor declares them dead but there is no obligation for a person to start. Don't know if this applies to medical professionals. it is also possible that the deceased had requested not being resuscitated.
Unfortunately the US doesn't have the same "good samaritan" laws that we do up here. In many cases showing due diligence in attempting to save a life can result in lawsuits up the wazoo. The nurse was complying with nursing home policy. Essentially her job was on the line. And the nursing home has backed her up.
Here an individual who had CPR training and tried would be protected.
Here an individual who had CPR training and tried would be protected.
that's the truth in US, good samaritan are prone to lawsuit. there was a case before that a good samaritan help a person in a vehicular accident and was charged with negligence due to he was not able to the stabilized the head when moving the person that keep the person paralised
Fear not folks!
This is just another example of that great heathcare GOPers say the USA has!.....:eyebrows:
This is just another example of that great heathcare GOPers say the USA has!.....:eyebrows:
Perhaps. A lot will depend on if the policy was known beforehand. If the person who died and their family members knew when she went in that the "nurses"(how they can call themselves that is a travesty at this point) would not render assistance they may not have a case.
I am guessing that there was a lot more to this than is available from the video.
1) DNRs are common. As individuals many people have them. Loki used to have one in his living will until I insisted he remove it and we bought a defib.
2) Facilities in the US often have a blanket DNR policy that residents agree to.
3) The video blurp said the woman's daughter was a nurse and supported the facilities actions (sounds a lot like a DNR).
Re the good Samaritan act etc
1) It depends on the jurisdiction.
2) In US and Canada if you are following the directions of a 911 operator you are not liable.
3) If you do not take any action you are NOT liable
4) If you do not ask first and get permission (or the person is unable to respond) you do become liable.
5) If you have no training and on your own decide to do something that hurts the person, you are liable (e.g. moving someone with spinal trauma) you become liable.
6) If you have received training and follow that training you are pretty much ok
i heard on the radio that the home has a policy of no intervention. patients/guardians sign an agreement upon moving in. that's what they said. the main error the nurse made was not passing the phone to a "passerby" as the 911 operator requested. i'm sorry for the 911 operator too. must have been huge stressful.
Hardly likely to be a "passerby" inside their dinning room. And if I had signed a DNR and someone passed the phone to a 'passerby' I would be suing them. A DNR is a DNR. Not a wiggle around it document.
Note that there was wiggle room in this case. The woman was breathing, so technically it was not a resuscitation. None the less, I would support the nursing home's position.
Actually once you decide to get involved, you have a legal commitment to continue providing aid. Not just CPR.
Example: serious cut. You stop the bleeding with direct pressure. After a while you get bored and decide to take off. Unless you are relieved by someone or the person has recovered, you are open to legal action.
I guess you didn't read post#7. Perhaps its the way you write - as if you are without a doubt the definitive expert in US emergency health care law . Hard to believe CNN didn't just phone you there on the boat for you opinion. Perhaps you don't mean to sound like that.
i just re-read the story in tor star and they don't mention DNR. just that the home policy is to provide no medical care or intervention. that policy may need review altho it may also mean more qualified personnel and hence, higher costs. the part where they sign agreement on entering the home is kinda fishy. if it's like here, rooms in homes are tough to find. it's almost signing under duress. (almost).
- Status
