The turn of events in this story is fascinating, to say the least. Wading through all of the details at this early stage of the investigation, there seems to be several issues that are hitting people’s hot spots.
First, some facts that appear undisputed:
1. The victim collapsed in what appears to be sudden cardiac arrest at an assisted living facility.
2. This facility did not provide routine medical care to the residents in this environment.
3. The facility has a policy that instructs staff to stand by and wait with the victim in case of an emergency.
4. The patient had no DNR order.
5. The reporting party is a nurse who did not perform CPR on the victim.
6. The family appears to be not upset by the actions of the facility and its staff.
Beyond the hyperbole being generated by the media, I thought there were some real issues to consider.
First, the organization’s policy of not rendering care in a medical emergency seems odd, at the very least.
Does the general age of its population have some bearing on this, meaning that a cardiac arrest on an elderly person is a terminal event?
What if the victim suffered a major laceration and was bleeding profusely? Would staff not try to stop the patient from exsanguinating? Or perform abdominal thrusts in a sudden choking?
To me, this seems to be simply a matter of degrees. When do you draw the line?
Did the nurse have a duty to act? Not a moral or ethical duty — I think that’s a whole other debate. But a legal one? It seems that the facility had a policy that was clearly known by the residents. Frankly, I’m not sure where the law would fall here.
Why is the family not anxious or upset at what happened? That’s a red flag to me — something else is happening that has not yet come to light.
This is such a strange story. I mean, I get it — if I was 87, I’d think really hard about wanting someone to do CPR on me. That’s why advanced directives exist. In the meantime, I wouldn’t want someone else to make that decision for me.