|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Mar 29, 2014 5:52:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 14:00:42 GMT -5
Okay, what I get from the article is that this only works for people with bad injuries leading to blood loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on Apr 6, 2014 21:39:44 GMT -5
"The trial is allowed to proceed because it is considered to be exempt from informed consent because the injuries are so severe that they would otherwise be fatal, and there is no current alternative."
Exempt from informed consent? What could possibly go wrong with that?
So let's say they fix/revive someone after declaring them legally dead. Can they continue to do anything they want to them because they'd have been dead anyway? I smell possible human rights/ethics violations. Sounds like a possible slippery slope that needs to be monitored closely. I certainly wouldn't want to be revived just to be a brain damaged lab rat for a science experiment. :/
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Apr 6, 2014 23:08:28 GMT -5
According to my Search and Rescue training —
In California, absent a “do not resuscitate order,” consent can be assumed if a victim or patient is unresponsive, which usually means unconscious but can also mean disoriented to the point that he doesn’t know what’s happening. This is based on the belief that a “reasonable person” would want to be helped if sick or injured, that he would prefer to live rather than die.
There could be reasonable exceptions, of course. For instance, someone who is terminally ill might prefer to get on with it, or an elderly person might prefer to die rather than face a lengthly recovery only to die before long anyway.
This mostly applies to accidents because in normal medical situations the patient’s wishes are known. He wouldn’t be at the hospital if he didn’t want treatment. But in an accident, an unresponsive victim’s wishes are not known, so it is assumed that he wants treatment.
And, of course, if he wakes up and is coherent, then he can give or refuse consent.
|
|
