The Last Word On The Last Breath Analysis
The article, “The Last Word on the Last Breath,” by Jan Hoffman, was published in 2006 by The New York Times. Hoffman is a features writer for The New York Times. Hoffman graduated from Cornell and has a masters in the Study in Law through a program at Yale University. Hoffman has many accolades, such as the Mike Berger Award, the Deadline Club Award, and the Women in Communication Award. Hoffman’s article is about a highly debated subject, do not resuscitate forms, and who should have the final decision. Although some think families should make the decision on Do Not Resuscitate forms, the author argues that doctors should have the final decision. In the beginning of this article, Hoffman starts with a gruesome, attention-grabbing scenario
…show more content…
People think their “doctor-like instincts” will kick in and they will do whatever it takes to save that patient from his or her suffering. “The core problem for both doctors and nurses was witnessing suffering, which engendered a moral obligation to reduce that suffering” (Oberle, 2001, p. 1). The problem with this situation is, even though patients may have signed a D.N.R. order after discussing it with their doctor, doctors may go against the patient’s wishes after seeing them suffering. Their emotions may get in the way of what the patient really wants. Many may think once the D.N.R. order is in place the doctors will not perform any type of emergency technique; this technique is wrong. It is the doctor’s discretion to decide whether performing CPR, or any other form of emergency resuscitation technique, is “medically futile.” If the patient has quality health, is young, and has not had any prior issues and suddenly slips into a condition that needs CPR, then the doctor may perform CPR because it is not “medically futile”. “We’re trained to make a decision and do it …. But yet if you take the whole thing down the line it might not be the right thing to do. There’s always the unknown” (Oberle, 2001, p. 1). One doctor that wanted to keep his identity private admitted to always having what he considers an “unknown,” the “what if?” Nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, unfortunately, even in the medical field. Although people want to say doctors should have the final decision on D.N.R. orders, they are feeling and going through the same emotions that a family or representative may be
People think their “doctor-like instincts” will kick in and they will do whatever it takes to save that patient from his or her suffering. “The core problem for both doctors and nurses was witnessing suffering, which engendered a moral obligation to reduce that suffering” (Oberle, 2001, p. 1). The problem with this situation is, even though patients may have signed a D.N.R. order after discussing it with their doctor, doctors may go against the patient’s wishes after seeing them suffering. Their emotions may get in the way of what the patient really wants. Many may think once the D.N.R. order is in place the doctors will not perform any type of emergency technique; this technique is wrong. It is the doctor’s discretion to decide whether performing CPR, or any other form of emergency resuscitation technique, is “medically futile.” If the patient has quality health, is young, and has not had any prior issues and suddenly slips into a condition that needs CPR, then the doctor may perform CPR because it is not “medically futile”. “We’re trained to make a decision and do it …. But yet if you take the whole thing down the line it might not be the right thing to do. There’s always the unknown” (Oberle, 2001, p. 1). One doctor that wanted to keep his identity private admitted to always having what he considers an “unknown,” the “what if?” Nobody can be perfect 100% of the time, unfortunately, even in the medical field. Although people want to say doctors should have the final decision on D.N.R. orders, they are feeling and going through the same emotions that a family or representative may be