In the news yesterday was a story of a "retirement facility" nurse in Bakersfield, CA who refused to perform CPR on a resident (911 Recording Details Calif. Dispatcher's Struggle). Reading this article, I felt the frustration of a Dispatcher who was doing everything they could to urge someone to provide potentially life-saving care. I sympathize with the Dispatcher, because I too was in a similar position.
As a certified Emergency Medical Dispatcher, I am permitted to instruct callers on performing certain pre-arrival instructions for instances such as life-threatening bleeding, childbirth, choking, and cardiac arrest. I've unfortunately been on the receiving end of a similar call with a patient who was reportedly choking, not moving any air, and the caller was vehemently refusing to provide any care. The reason for the refusal? "We're looking to see if there's a DNR on file." I about lost it, informing the caller that a Do Not Resuscitate order is not a "Do Not Treat" order and that choking is not a natural form of death, so the argument was invalid. The caller continued to refuse over my myriad instructions and the end result was as expected. Those emotions came flooding back as I read the headline and subsequent story.
Unfortunately, cases like this are not as uncommon as you may think. Many "retirement communities" have medically-certified staff on location who are not permitted to perform any interventions as a matter of policy, no matter how misguided you may find that policy to be. Lawyers have advised these communities that performing medical interventions is a "significant risk," and therefore the communities establish these rules presumably to protect their staff from liability. However, at which point do we as human beings push policy aside to fulfill what many would call a moral obligation?
As a pre-hospital care provider, I have a duty to act when I'm acting in my professional capacity as an EMT. I also have a duty to act when I'm acting in my professional capacity as a call-taker or Dispatcher. When I'm off-duty and out with family or friends, I no longer have a duty to act, but I do have what I would consider to be a moral obligation to provide assistance to someone in need of care for a life- or limb-threatening situation. Does this mean I stop at every car accident and render aid? No; I don't have the equipment I need to provide care. Does it mean that I would drop and start CPR on a bystander if necessary? Absolutely. I have all the equipment I need to provide several minutes of potentially life-saving care: good, quality chest compressions. Besides, this is a human life we're talking about.
Why can't more people follow their moral compass instead of bowing to corporate pressures of compliance in this type of situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment