REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.
TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com
IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice
FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD
Moral Confusion: If Non-Human Animals are Made Partly Human
It all is about the ethics of the creation of non-human
animals but with human-derived parts. Should we leave non-human animals alone to go
their own way in the evolutionary pathway or should (in some cases, no longer
only "can") we put human cells and human tissues into non-human
animals to become subjects for human research or animals from which to recover
tissues compatible for use in human patients? The goals of these procedures may
be of great benefit to humans but the question is whether "crossing the
human/nonhuman species boundary introduces inexorable moral confusion that
warrants a restriction to this research on precautionary grounds" (Haber
and Benham, American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 12, issue 9, 2012)
The argument for caution is that confusion would occur in how
we looked at our existing relationships with non-human animals and in the
future our relationships with animals which have been made into part human and
part non-human either by some future method of creating a hybrid (through mixing
human sperm with animal eggs) or the current potential ability to create a
chimera such as placing human brain tissue into a non-human animal's body. Should or would we treat these creatures
differently than how we treat our current animals? Would these animals with part of
"us" in them become more "us"? What is your opinion about this real and no
longer esoteric philosophical and ethical issue? ..Maurice.
Graphic: Chimera from Google Images and modified by me with ArtRage 3
"Slow and Show" CPR: Patient's Best Interest?
Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the term used to
describe the action of attempting to prevent a patient from dying from sudden
stopping of heart beat or breathing. CPR
has been an accepted medical technique for decades and has been performed both
on the outside and inside a hospital.
Within the hospital, it has been the policy over the years to provide
CPR to all patients suffering cardiac or pulmonary arrest with few exceptions
unless the patient has previously requested "do not resuscitate" (DNR)
and this request placed as a physician's order in the patient's chart.
Since, the time available for resuscitation to begin and have
any chance of being effective and prevent death is only a matter of a few
minutes at the most, CPR activity must begin promptly with a planned
resuscitation protocol including the identification of a cardiac and/or
pulmonary arrest event, arrival of medical personnel with necessary equipment
and the prompt initiation of resuscitation actions by the staff with
appropriate modifications depending on the patient's response. Though not all resuscitation attempts are
successful either to save the patient from death at the time, prevent
persisting damage from the event or permit a live discharge from the hospital,
without prompt and proper management, death will be the result.
Since CPR has been granted as default to all patients except
those who have requested DNR there will be patients who arrest and thus a
candidate for CPR who have terminal illnesses with no chance of a valued
recovery even if death at this point is prevented. But the question is "whose value?"
Should it be the determination of the
medical staff or should it be that of the patient? And when there is no DNR requested by the
patient either because the patient wanted CPR or that the patient was not
offered that alternative, should the medical staff be as energetic in
initiating and performing CPR in a patient who the staff assesses as already
terminal with unlikely long term benefit from that resuscitation attempt?
Over the years of CPR, there has been a practice which has
occurred in hospitals in which the medical staff having made their own prognosis
of a futile life if the patient survives and may decide to not arrive as
promptly as necessary to the stricken patient's bedside and when finally
starting a CPR activity fail to perform it in an energetic fashion necessary
for attempted benefit. These responses
have been titled "slow code" or even "show code" (only
"showing" that something was being done but not really doing it with
the goal of success.) This practice has
not been institutionally or professionally accepted over the years but is most
likely still being carried out.
Why? It is because since CPR is
the default action in hospitals for all patients except those with a DNR order,
there will be a number of patients who carry a poor overall prognosis and there
will be physicians and nursing staff who recognize this and find it difficult to be more energetic toward
these patients in response to an arrest.
The ethical issue is whether this response by the professionals is
really in the overall best interest of their patient or whether the patient
should have had an opportunity to make their own informed decision in advance
and that decision fully, completely followed by the staff irrespective of the
The other, alternative approach to encourage patient
decision-making would be to completely reverse the hospital policy: all
patients and families would be notified on admission that CPR is no longer
offered as a treatment unless specifically requested by the patient. There will
be no DNR request needed. After all, CPR was originally begun as a treatment
only for those in good health but with a sudden unexpected loss of heart beat
or respiration through an accident such as electric shock or drowning.
What do you think about the CPR-DNR issue for hospitalized
patients and about any persistent practice of "slow" or
"show" codes? ..Maurice.