...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ: British medical journal >Is discussing futile treatments really best for dying patients?
【24h】

Is discussing futile treatments really best for dying patients?

机译:讨论徒劳的治疗真的最好适合垂死的患者吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

When US doctors were asked if they would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the case of major cerebral injury, 90% of them said no thank you. CPR, as with all treatments, has limitations and side effects, causing bodily injury and, in terminal illness, a medicalised death. It changes our last minutes from what could be a peaceful process into a medical battleground. And it's been found to be "futile" in patients receiving palliative care for cancer. So it's a concern that the Court of Appeal has found that doctors breached a British patient's right to a private life when they added a "Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation" (DNACPR) order to her notes without her knowledge.
机译:当我们的医生被问到是否需要心肺复苏(CPR),如果发生重大脑受伤,则有90%的人说没有谢谢。 与所有治疗方法一样,心肺复苏术具有局限性和副作用,导致人身伤害,并且在绝症中是医疗死亡。 它将我们的最后几分钟从可能的和平进程变为医疗战场。 在接受癌症姑息治疗的患者中,发现它是“徒劳的”。 因此,令人担忧的是,上诉法院发现,当医生添加了“不要尝试心肺复苏”(DNACPR)命令的情况下,医生违反了英国患者的私人生活权,而她却不知道。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号