Your opinions please.

Sue...a DNR is a "document" stating that the patient is not be resuscitated. "Do Not Resucitate". It's leagally binding.

Jason...it's very much what animals do. They go off on their own to die. Makes sense. Death I suppose could be a beautiful thing but for us left behind its fearful and sad.

What a horrifying thought that if I had, to all intents and purposes, "died", someone would actually decide for me that it was not to be!!

I can understand resucitation if the person is young or in an accident but over 70's whose quality of life is already seriously impaired, then I find it immoral for someone else to choose  to damage me more in an attempt to return me to an even worse quality of life, making me a bigger burden on the nursing staff/doctors/care facility/family.  We allow animals more dignity in death!

In fact I think I would go further and ban it if the elderly person is in a nursing home/frail care/hospice etc.

Both of my frail, ailing parents have very specific DNR documents. Though they live with me and my wife, they spend some of the time with my brother in Chicago. We both have medical power of attorney for my parents, both of us have discussed my parents' wishes with them at length and my brother and I are completely on the same page when it comes to making that difficult decision (probably in the very near future for at least one of them). My father-in-law also had a DNR document to which my wife and I adhered. He had advanced Alzheimer's Disease and his death, with family surrounding his bed, was quiet, dignified and as easy a passage as one could wish.

I also have a DNR document and I am listed as an organ donor. To me, when it comes to catastrophic illness, quality of life and the possiblity of a "good" death trumps being kept "alive" via machine. The way my father-in-law left this existence is the way I would like to go.

if that happen to me then for me it would have to be DNAR  do not attempt rescusitation.

just let me go iam shore i no a song about that ?? 

If the person concerned is well into old age and in poor health I see no point in unnecessarily prolonging his/her misery.

In a country like India there is another angle.Recently the father of one person in my office fell very seriously ill with several complications.For two weeks the hospital kept him in and tried all sorts of treatments.My colleague had to spend money he could ill afford all the time knowing it would not help.At the end of it all his father passed away (as expected).I find this wholly unethical on the part of the doctors and the hospital.

That is a good point Urmi!  In countries without National Health (or even with it), the prolonging of life is extremely expensive and very hard on the families both financially and emotionally and physically.

Mike's recent stay in hospital cost in the region of R160 000.00, if we were not fortunate enough to have been paying into Medical Aid (Hospital Insurance) we would have had to sell the house to pay the bills!!!

If that money had been spent without hope of survival, or the quality of life would have been seriously affected requiring permanent care, then it does seem as though either the patient is a guinea pig to try various treatments on, or it is a money-making raquet.  Either way it is totally unacceptable!

Good and important thread Jason. Fact is, we seem not to want what you professionals have to offer when we are old, say 70's plus! The case you describe is sad but it had an inevitable end, as indeed we all do.

I remember my mother having had a stroke and being totally unable to move. Majority of the family told the hospital do not resuscitate, but along comes a brother, who lived nowhere near her, and visited even less who said yes she must be resuscitated. The hospital had no choice but to bring her back to a vegetable state where she 'hung on' for 18 months! Terrible, and all because of one family member having a different opinion. I know my mother would not have wanted that, and I certainly would not!