No Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/support and comfort only

I tried to find the No Cardiiopulmonary Resuscitation form as directed on the form being www.health.gov.bc.ca/exforms/bcas/302.1fil.pdf.  It wasn't there.  However I found it at www2.gov.bc.ca Forms for Medical and Health Care Practioners under miscellaneous form #3021 No Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (PDF, 675KB). 

What concerns me is the declaration signed by the patient:

I, the patient, understand and accept that I have been diagnosed as having a life-limiting illness or am considered to be at the natural end of my life and that my care is to include support and comfort only and that no cardiopulmonary resuscitation is to be undertaken. 

What does this mean.  Does this mean that a patient refuses agressive medical treatment when he agrees to a DNR.
.

The Selection Process 1938-1945

A selection process of who will die was implemented by the Nazi doctors as they too had to sign a document not signed by the patient..At first the patient had to agree but later he was not consulted. It wasn't the SS who corralled prisoners and killed them indiscriminately, it was the doctors who selected them on medical grounds (killing to heal) therefore it was legal. The SS bureaucracy wanted the slave prisoners to work; they did not want them dead. . History repeating itself.

Reference:  Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, The Nazi Doctors, by Dr. Robert J. Lifton, 561 pages (2000AD)

.

Patients Donot have to agree to DNRs.

I have to keep educating any new audience as to why this nightmare is happening.  Although the BCMA has a DNR form called "No Cardioipulmonary Resuscitation" form for the general public, it has to be signed by the patient.

However, Vancouver Coastal Health has its own "laws" and a form that says only a doctor has to sign a DNR.  No patient; no surrogate; no witness.  So whatever I speak I speak with the truth as I have experienced it.


11:15 a.m. postscript:
I just read the instructions to patient/family attached to the BCMA form it states If you live in a residential care facility (GPC), your doctor and care team will help you and/or your legal representative to make choices and plans abut the end of life.  Dr. Dunne would put on a DNR and he would never include me in the conversation.  And to think the social worker who is an officer of the court would not tell me as well. I was Randy's substitute decision maker and I should have been aware.  At the bottom of the form it says that it was developed in conjunction with the BCMA.  The form was issued by the Ministry of Health for British Columbia which I would speculate would mean that it is a government legal directive.

The form can be found at https://www.health.gov.bc.ca/exforms/bcas/302.1fil.pdf

The Decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons

When I posted that the College said that Dr. Dunne did no wrong re the illegal DNR Order of November 2013, the pertinent wording was:

"Because of the confidential health information of Mr. Walker formed the basis for the Committee's discussion, we are not able to disclose details of the Committee's decision. We are able to advise you that the Committee was not critical of the medical care Dr. Dunne provided to Mr. Walker.  However, the Committee was critical of Dr. Dunne's medical documentation.  This matter is considered concluded."

.

Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Clear rules and consequences needed concerning the...

Alex Schadenberg, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Clear rules and consequences needed concerning the...: This article was published by Advocate Daily on March 30, 2015 . Hugh Scher Top British Columbia courts have made it clear that or...

The Carter decision risks creating a culture of permissiveness with regard to all end-of-life matters, says Scher, and real consequences are required for those that break or ignore the law. Without them, all Canadians are put at serious risk in health care settings across the country, Scher states.1-416-816-6115

...go down to see prior post dated April 3 2015

 

Medical Murder is now called Inappropriate Conduct

 
Medical Murder is now called Inappropriate Conduct (my headline)

Directives from Supreme Court must be enforced.

This article was published by Advocate Daily on March 31, 2015.

Hugh Scher

Many Canadians do not recognize the full extent to which existing rules around end-of-life decision-making are not serving as appropriate barriers to inappropriate conduct, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.

“This makes it all the more unlikely that new rules are going to stop the conduct,” says Scher,

Concerning cases around end-of-life care decisions continue to crop up across Canada, says Scher, noting it is unclear whether directives from prior court rulings are being respected and enforced.

In one recent case, a Toronto physician and hospital were sued by a family who alleged a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order was unilaterally placed on an elderly patient at Toronto East General Hospital against their wishes, reports the Toronto Star.

The Star reports the statement of claim, which seeks $1.2 million in damages for four of Canh Luong’s family members, alleges Dr. Alvin Chang and Toronto East General committed “wrongful death, abuse of power, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.”

The statement of claim, says the Star, alleges Chang was negligent in preferring “his own opinion over that of the plaintiffs with respect to the code status of Luong,” for failing to consult them before making the change, and for failing “to provide Luong with the necessaries of life.”

Scher, who is not involved in the Luong case but who has been involved in other such cases, says clear rules and meaningful consequences for those who go against the established guidelines are needed.

“If we are not able to stop the most basic abuses relative to DNR orders or end-of-life care measures now, expanding those practices presents serious dangers,” says Scher. “The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in Rasouli that doctors should not be acting unilaterally with regard to the withholding and withdrawal of treatment including end-of-life decision-making measures and that consent to treatment or refusing treatment – particularly where it forms part of an ongoing treatment plan – is required from the patient or substitute decision-maker.”

Scher says, “Doctors who act against that consent or without it are acting without lawful authority and in my view, are running afoul of the law as established by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

In doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases. The court gave the federal government 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling, with the ban on doctor-assisted suicide standing until then.

In Carter, released in February, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases. The court gave the federal government 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling, with the ban on doctor-assisted suicide standing until then.


The Carter decision risks creating a culture of permissiveness with regard to all end-of-life matters, says Scher, and real consequences are required for those that break or ignore the law. Without them, all Canadians are put at serious risk in health care settings across the country, Scher states.

HughScher 1-416-816-6115,  hugh@sdlaw.ca

- See more at: http://www.advocatedaily.com/directives-from-supreme-court-must-be-respected-enforced.html#sthash.43fAjQuo.dpuf

Directives from Supreme Court must be respected, enforced

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Many Canadians do not recognize the full extent to which existing rules around end-of-life decision-making are not serving as appropriate barriers to inappropriate conduct, says Toronto health and human rights lawyer Hugh Scher.

“This makes it all the more unlikely that new rules are going to stop the conduct,” says Scher, who has acted as counsel to The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in several high-profile end-of-life files including Rasouli v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2011 ONCA 482 (CanLII); Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, 2013 SCC 53, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 341; Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society, 2014 BCSC 165 (CanLII); Bentley v. Maplewood Seniors Care Society 2015 BCCA 91; Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 886 (CanLII); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 BCCA 435 (CanLII); and Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.

Concerning cases around end-of-life care decisions continue to crop up across Canada, says Scher, noting it is unclear whether directives from prior court rulings are being respected and enforced.

In one recent case, a Toronto physician and hospital were sued by a family who alleged a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order was unilaterally placed on an elderly patient at Toronto East General Hospital against their wishes, reports the Toronto Star.

The Star reports the statement of claim, which seeks $1.2 million in damages for four of Canh Luong’s family members, alleges Dr. Alvin Chang and Toronto East General committed “wrongful death, abuse of power, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.”

The statement of claim, says the Star, alleges Chang was negligent in preferring “his own opinion over that of the plaintiffs with respect to the code status of Luong,” for failing to consult them before making the change, and for failing “to provide Luong with the necessaries of life.”

Scher, who is not involved in the Luong case but who has been involved in other such cases, says clear rules and meaningful consequences for those who go against the established guidelines are needed.

“If we are not able to stop the most basic abuses relative to DNR orders or end-of-life care measures now, expanding those practices presents serious dangers,” says Scher. “The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in Rasouli that doctors should not be acting unilaterally with regard to the withholding and withdrawal of treatment including end-of-life decision-making measures and that consent to treatment or refusing treatment – particularly where it forms part of an ongoing treatment plan – is required from the patient or substitute decision-maker.”

Scher says, “Doctors who act against that consent or without it are acting without lawful authority and in my view, are running afoul of the law as established by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

In Carter, released in February, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases. The court gave the federal government 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling, with the ban on doctor-assisted suicide standing until then.

The Carter decision risks creating a culture of permissiveness with regard to all end-of-life matters, says Scher, and real consequences are required for those that break or ignore the law. Without them, all Canadians are put at serious risk in health care settings across the country, Scher states.

- See more at: http://www.advocatedaily.com/directives-from-supreme-court-must-be-respected-enforced.html#sthash.43fAjQuo.dpuf

I have been trying to delete this post but like another time it won't.delete/edit.  Computers are beyond me.

 

.

 


.

This is also happening in Canada i.e. pressuring patients to agree to DNRs

Marlene Deakins, RN, Supporting SB 5919. Arizona

"I hope that  with the proposed bill, doctors will get the message that they need to back off , to make sure that patients are freely choosing what’s best for them, as chosen by them."

* * * 

Dear Senator Padden, Members of the Law and Justice Committee and Senator Angel:

I am a Registered Nurse.  I am writing this letter in support of SB 5919, which would make it clear that persons asking about assisted suicide remain eligible to be told about options for cure or to extend life.  I hope that this law will provide protection for people like my brother, Wes Olfert, who died a few years ago (2011) in Washington State.

When he was first admitted to the hospital, he made the mistake of asking about assisted suicide.  I say a mistake, because this set off a chain of events that interfered with his care and caused him unnecessary stress in what turned out to be the last months of his life.

By asking the question, he was given a "palliative care" consult by a doctor who heavily and continually pressured him to give up on treatment before he was ready to do so.  It got so bad that Wes became fearful of this doctor and asked me and a friend to not leave him alone with her.

I hope that  with the proposed bill, doctors will get the message that they need to back off, to make sure that patients are freely choosing what’s best for them, as chosen by them.

Marlene Deakins, RN
Tuscon Arizona