4 ms·

Did you read the article: > And there’s good reason to be cautious. Back in 2012, Lori Cooper at the California Pacific Medical Center was caring for a (consci

Did you read the article: > And there’s good reason to be cautious. Back in 2012, Lori Cooper at the California Pacific Medical Center was caring for a (conscious) patient who was going to have a leg amputated, when she noticed a “DNR” tattoo on his chest. The man revealed that he got the tattoo after losing a poker bet many years ago, and actually, he would very much like to be resuscitated if the need arose. “It was suggested that he consider tattoo removal to circumvent future confusion about his code status,” Cooper wrote. “He stated he did not think anyone would take his tattoo seriously and declined tattoo removal.”

jstanley 9y ago
Well that guy's an idiot then. That one guy is an idiot shouldn't prevent anyone else from declaring a near-permanent DNR... He should have it covered up if he doesn't mean it.
- AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  I agree he's an idiot. I'm just saying there are some reasons to consider tattooed DNRs invalid. While the guy, in this case, could have obviously covered up his tattoo prior to his scheduled surgery (permanently or temporarily), what if he had been in an unexpected accident? I don't have any tattoos but a quick google says removal is expensive too. I guess you could have someone tattoo over it, but, in the article, they mention a man who had come from a nursing facility. I'm not sure how practical it is to suggest he should have had it removed/covered up prior. I like the basis of killjoywashere's suggestion, but, in a more centralized way that would allow you to register your intentions in a way that hospitals could easily check on your desires and status.
- Frondo 9y ago
  It's hard to think of a better example of a candidate for the Darwin Awards than the guy who gets a DNR tattoo and thinks "no one will take it seriously."
- xg15 9y ago
  Why is he an idiot? The tatoo is not legally binding. It never was. As stated in the article, it can't even give the kind of reassurance that is required by law (indication of rational descision) Why should he have expected that it works?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Regardless of whether it's legally binding, what we see here is an anecdote where there was a delay in treatment. Why should he expect that it would be ignored? People get serious tattoos all the time: https://www.google.com/search?q=medic+alert+bracelet+tattoo https://www.google.com/search?q=medic+alert+bracelet+tattoo
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
    Because, at least, it's going to confuse medical staff and delay treatment. In a critical care situation, seconds matter.
- kswahl1 9y ago
  As a Firefighter/EMT, protocols are very clear in on what’s considered a valid DNR. This would cause zero confusion on scene.

jstanley 9y ago

Well that guy's an idiot then. That one guy is an idiot shouldn't prevent anyone else from declaring a near-permanent DNR... He should have it covered up if he doesn't mean it.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
I agree he's an idiot. I'm just saying there are some reasons to consider tattooed DNRs invalid. While the guy, in this case, could have obviously covered up his tattoo prior to his scheduled surgery (permanently or temporarily), what if he had been in an unexpected accident? I don't have any tattoos but a quick google says removal is expensive too. I guess you could have someone tattoo over it, but, in the article, they mention a man who had come from a nursing facility. I'm not sure how practical it is to suggest he should have had it removed/covered up prior. I like the basis of killjoywashere's suggestion, but, in a more centralized way that would allow you to register your intentions in a way that hospitals could easily check on your desires and status.
Frondo 9y ago
It's hard to think of a better example of a candidate for the Darwin Awards than the guy who gets a DNR tattoo and thinks "no one will take it seriously."
xg15 9y ago
Why is he an idiot? The tatoo is not legally binding. It never was. As stated in the article, it can't even give the kind of reassurance that is required by law (indication of rational descision) Why should he have expected that it works?
- rhizome 9y ago
  Regardless of whether it's legally binding, what we see here is an anecdote where there was a delay in treatment. Why should he expect that it would be ignored? People get serious tattoos all the time: https://www.google.com/search?q=medic+alert+bracelet+tattoo https://www.google.com/search?q=medic+alert+bracelet+tattoo
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  Because, at least, it's going to confuse medical staff and delay treatment. In a critical care situation, seconds matter.
kswahl1 9y ago
As a Firefighter/EMT, protocols are very clear in on what’s considered a valid DNR. This would cause zero confusion on scene.