venta | Medical Memento

Current Music: Baader Meinhof - Baader Meinhof

Medical Memento

I've just had this news story pointed out to me by my boss. [Short version: elderly woman gets "Do not resuscitate" tattoo.]

Now, the 'no under 16s' signs outside tattoo parlours always say "except for medical reasons". Does anyone know how common this actually is? Although I know a few people who have potentially life-threatening conditions, none of them have tattoos to ensure this information is read... though a couple of them do wear those SOS Talisman necklaces.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It had occurred to me to get one of them. Mainly this would have been to scare

sibelian, who used to work in Casualty.

Firstly, I'm not sure that I'd be inclined to respect a DNR tattoo (if I were in a position to have to decide), simply because the fact of it being unconventional makes its meaning uncertain.

Secondly, from the article, "plans to put more than 700 defibrillators in public places".

Does anyone else think this sounds on the face of it like an outrageously stupid idea? What's the point of banning taser weapons if you're just going to leave them lying around for anyone to pinch?

the fact of it being unconventional makes its meaning uncertain

I don't think so. After all, its meaning isn't unclear - it says do not do X, therefore you shouldn't do X.

The problem is more whether you think the tatoo-ee meant it, after all, the people who have "---8<--- cut here" tattooed on their necks probably didn't mean it. However, I'd be inclined to respect it, on the grounds that anyone who'd had it tattooed on for a laugh is clearly stupid.

Also, I can't think of a more viable way of expressing that you don't wish to be resuscitated - wherever else you record it, there may not be time for someone to go and read it when they have to make the decision.

The problem is more whether you think the tatoo-ee meant it

Almost. The problem is whether the tatoo-ee still means it.

If you have a DNR in a hospital, then you can revoke it at any time when you're conscious. If you wear a medical bracelet, you can take it off. If you have a tattoo, getting it removed is a serious undertaking. What would you do in the mean time, cross it out with a felt tip?

I don't think that it's unreasonable to respect such a tattoo, just that personally I wouldn't be confident doing so unless, on seeing that tattoo, I thought "gosh, surely this person will also be carrying a living will in her handbag", looked for it, and found it.

After all, its meaning isn't unclear

Yes, you're quite right. Sorry, it's the authority which is uncertain, not the meaning.

Secondly, from the article, "plans to put more than 700 defibrillators in public places".

Does anyone else think this sounds on the face of it like an outrageously stupid idea?

IIRC from earlier articles the idea was to have them in places where a staff member or members would be trained to use them. In fact, I think I may already have seen one in a tube station, possibly Liverpool Street. IIRC, again, it was cased behind a breakable glass panel.

I've seen at least one and probably three or four around the place - one at Darlington station, bringing this back on-topic to

venta. Apparently the machinery contains some sort of logic to detect whether the restart is necessary and will not apply the energy if it is not necessary. Not sure how this would work, but it does sound reassuring.

I think I can remember seeing another one in either a big supermarket or a shopping centre, too.

the machinery contains some sort of logic to detect whether the restart is necessary and will not apply the energy if it is not necessary

Suppose we assume for the moment that this is correct, and the mechanism works. Thus there is no chance that I might accidentally defibrillate someone who doesn't need it.

So why on earth can they only be operated by trained people? Surely, if you need resuscitating, an incompetent with a defibrillator is better than nothing?

Theoretically perhaps the mechanism will only work if the equipment is physically installed properly and this is where the training is required. (Alternatively, it might be possible for an incompetent to apply the equipment incorrectly so to trigger the logic into thinking that energy is required when really it isn't.)

This is a guess, obviously. :-)

Suppose we assume for the moment that this is correct, and the mechanism works

And suppose we assume for a separate moment that it doesn't, and that there are either false positives (i.e., it is possible to use the defibrillator for amusing cartoon hair-stand-on-end moments) or false negatives (i.e., some poor bastard is going to die because the defibrillator refuses to work)...

Thus there is no chance that I might accidentally defibrillate someone who doesn't need it.

Wrong. If you've applied the plate to their chest, you might be OK. If you've applied it to their forehead, things won't go so well (no heartbeat up there, is there ?).

Trained personnel doesn't imply anything very profound, just a quick check for fuzzy felt feet !

I'll just be off to have dinner, and write out "I must remember that many people are very stupid" 1000 times.

Trained personnel doesn't imply anything very profound

Well, if they're being given defibrillators to play with, maybe it does. Otherwise you're probably better off waiting for the ambulance even if they don't do anything outrageously dumb.

Yup, I've seen a fair few of them around in stations recently. With big labels saying that they must only be used by trained personnel - so no chance of theft :)

it was cased behind a breakable glass panel.

Ah, I see. If the panel sounds an alarm when it's broken, and summons an ambulance in the same way some fire alarms summon a fire engine, the risks of misuse are greatly reduced.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Medical Memento

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Eh?

Re: Eh?

Re: Eh?

Re: Eh?

Oh yeah

Re: Eh?

no subject

no subject