2/2 by ethical treatment I mean "right treatment for right indication, likely to work, and no futile suffering"https://twitter.com/K_G_Spearpoint/status/612203988218454016 …
@jodyaberdein @doctorcaldwell That's because it's distressing by default, no? But being distressing does not in itself cause harm.
-
-
@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell I more mean that psychological harm can allow 'no discussion', but the huge harm of futile CPR doesn't seem to figure -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell The ruling allows doctors to make clinical decision -sparing harm- >> -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell >>but requires that decision is discussed unless it will cause harm. -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell the only king that has changed is that distress is not a high enough bar. -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell otherwise nothing has really changed from previous guidance.. -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell that is, unless more doctors than care to admit it were not discussing at all pre-judgment -
@jodyaberdein@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell which, I have to say, seems to be the evidence by the furore the judgment has caused among doctors -
@katemasters67@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell I honestly think that frequently it was not overtly discussed, yes. - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.