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 …
-
-
Replying to @doctorcaldwell
@doctorcaldwell But yet again, this is OPINION. Opinion which pts have the right to debate. It's not an optional extra Gordon, it's the law.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell which will of course result in people like me fracturing more elderly sternums in vain. About which the law is silent3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @jodyaberdein
@jodyaberdein@doctorcaldwell That'll only happen if you fail to have the discussion though - which is all this is about. Why is it so hard?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell which is akin to demanding a non-indicated dangerous treatment, that we then must administer, under duress...1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jodyaberdein
@jodyaberdein@doctorcaldwell Why is it? This decision is the clinician's alone - as the law makes clear. On paper, pt has no influence here2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell On paper no. In practice it means more people will be for DNACPR, rightly or wrongly.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jodyaberdein
@jodyaberdein@doctorcaldwell Clearly wrongly, unless the original decision was indeed wrong? Ruling was right. Practice is another thing.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY
@C7RKY@doctorcaldwell My (limited) understanding of the case is that further attempts at discussion by the team were refused though?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@jodyaberdein @doctorcaldwell It's tricky for me to comment on the case, but I'll just say I'm not sure you'd be correct to think that. ;)
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.