The central question about DNR/don't DNR seems to be, what level of qualify of life, no matter how short, is desireable in the face of the level of pain, overall short and long term damage, and cost.
Here's the situation: ACLS or advanced cardiac life support is generally a brutal process, and the results are not as good as you'd expect. For a young, healthy person with no history of cardiac disease, in a cardiac care unit (CCU) -- the best case scenario, both short and long term survival odds are pretty good, and ACLS is almost never skipped. However, in elderly patients with a history of cardiac disease, that code in the field away from teh hospital, the survival rate from starting ACLS to patient released from hospital is as low as 5%.
With anyone, ACLS is brutal even if it's properly carried out. You need to compress the chest to about 1.5 inches. In the young, this can cause broken ribs, cardiac damage, liver damage, and it's wildly painful -- it has to be. In the elderly, who have fragile bones, ACLS often crushes most of the bones in the chest. Breathing tubes need to be inserted. IV lines are started and a battery of medications are delivered, some quite harsh. Defibrillation -- the conversion of a cardiac arrythmia -- may be delivered. It's not all that common to survive initial CPR, much less get released from hospital in good shape. And -- again most often with the elderly, the odds of a recurrence are quite high.
Finally ACLS is all about restoring oxygen flow to the brain. If this doesn't happen very quickly, impairment inevitably occurs. This may range from something very mild up to a completely vegetative state, or of course death. Note that in a vegetative state, where the body is already mostly dysfunctional and doesn't need as much to survive, the patient can remain alive, hooked up to very expensive equipment, sometimes for years. With an often hopeless prognosis, this can easily and quite literally bankrupt most families.
Considering the pain, cost, loss of function, and shortness of time before a recurrance, many opt for a DNR.
On the other hand, as the prognosis gets less grave, the more the argument swings to no DNR. If there's a good chance, for instance, of a full recovery, and many happy years ahead, why not go for it? The trouble of course is finding a happy medium.
Signing a DNR is always a hard thing to do, and requires a LOT of consideration. However, it can be the last, final kindness one person owes another.
Three or less.
In a debate, the main arguments you will seek to prove and defend should be clear, logical, and supported by evidence. They should directly address the topic at hand, anticipate counterarguments, and aim to convince the audience of the validity of your position. Remember to stay focused on your key points and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant information.
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
I have never heard of that before, but it seems to me that it is a debate with only one rebuttal per side. A rebuttal is a speech where a team is allowed to make arguments on pre-existing arguments, but they are not allowed to bring up new arguments.
Yes
No a DNR does not but you have a family that is sick and had gotten a DNR for the hospitals to see then the will not DNR the family memeber.
I think you could be talking about a Debate
The segment of the debate that crystallizes arguments against the resolution is typically called the "rebuttal." This is where debaters counter and challenge the points made by the opposing side to strengthen their own position.
To know the arguments of the other side as well as you know your own.
Both explain the basis for an argument.
Georgia Outdoors - 1992 DNR Some Fine Fishing 5-19 was released on: USA: 1996
Both explain the basis for an argument.