In the Midst of Life

said, ‘I’ve seen that too; and
heard
it. It can be really scary, especially if you are a young nurse in the middle of the night, and you are not expecting it … spooky!’
    I joined her laughter and commented that medical people are known to have a black sense of humour.
    ‘Too true. We need it,’ she said.
    These are just a few examples from a family of nurses to illustrate the frenzy that overtook medicine during that period of medical history. It also illustrates that medicine, like any other profession, is prone to fashions. Today, in the twenty-first century, there is more discrimination in undertaking resuscitation, but even so, the prognosis is poor. Nuland stated that only fifteen per cent of hospitalised patients below the age of seventy would survive cardiac arrest and resuscitation, and almost none over that age. That proportion has remained unchanged.
    Yet, even with more selection, a lot of resuscitation goes on in hospitals. Doctors know that in most cases it will be futile, so why do they carry on doing it? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, and most importantly, for the sake of the fifteen per cent who
do
survive. The second reason is more complex. The burdens placed upon doctors and nurses by public expectations are crushing. Doctors feel blamed for every death and, driven by a combination of guilt and doubt and fear, they strive all the time to save a life. They know that if they don’t make the maximum effort, and someone dies, they could be in serious trouble, which could destroy a career. The fear of litigation is ever-present.
    Yet the public, and particularly the media, are so fickle that, having saved a life, doctors are then often accused of needlessly prolonging life and causing suffering. Whatever they do they will be in the wrong. Sometimes I wonder why anyone ever becomes a doctor or a nurse at all!
    The heyday of resuscitation in hospitals was around 1970-95. Since then, much more restraint and discrimination has been observed. Doctors are now more ready to write a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order if it is foreseen that a patient has a diagnosed condition with progressive advanced illness from which they will not recover, and for which resuscitation would be futile. Details of the General Medical Council (GMC) directive to doctors issued May 2010 can be found in Appendix I.
    To discuss the prognosis with the patient is ideal, but it is often difficult, or plain impossible. Some patients are not approachable on the subject of their own death; some doctors cannot bring themselves to mention the dreaded word, and, in that case, an experienced nurse may be better. Some patients, surprisingly, have never even thought about it and say, ‘I don’t know - I leave it to you, Doctor.’ Others say, ‘I want to go when my time comes.’ Everyone is different, every doctor and nurse is different, and every clinical situation is different. What is necessary, in all ‘Would you want to be resuscitated?’ situations, is time. Such a discussion, if handled sensitively, could take all afternoon - and who, in the busy setting of a modern hospital, has that amount of time at their disposal? Probably no one. So an informed discussion is often hurried, even rushed, or pushed aside for a day that never comes.
    Everybody must think about these things and discuss themwith family, friends or carers long before a nervous young doctor tentatively raises the issue, or a lady with a clipboard comes round and says, ‘I’m filling in a patient’s questionnaire – do you want to be resuscitated? Shall I put a tick in the box, or not?’
    At this point, it must be emphasised that resuscitation is the only medical procedure for which you have to say, quite specifically, that you do not want it. In the absence of such a refusal, resuscitation will be attempted.
    What happens if the patient cannot make this decision? It used to be the law that no one could make such a decision for another person. But the Mental Capacity Act, 2009, alters that. An assessment must be made thus:
    1. Can the patient understand and retain the information?
    2. Can he/she weigh the risks versus benefits?
    3. Can he/she rationally come to a decision?
    If the answers are negative, relatives, close friends, and long-term carers can assist, or even make a decision, providing he or she does not stand to gain financially from the death of the person involved, and providing he or she is rational and reasonable.
    The Reverend