SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A 70-year-old man with an unusual chest tattoo caused doctors to call for the assistance of ethics consultants:
Emergency medicine doctors in Florida struggled to figure out how to respectfully care for an unconscious 70-year-old man with a chest tattoo that read "Do Not Resuscitate" followed by what appeared to be his signature. In a case report published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the doctors recounted:
This patient's tattooed DNR request produced more confusion than clarity, given concerns about its legality and likely unfounded beliefs that tattoos might represent permanent reminders of regretted decisions made while the person was intoxicated.
The unresponsive patient was brought to the emergency department by paramedics. He had high blood-alcohol levels and no identification or family with him. After a few hours, hospital staff saw his condition slipping. His blood pressure dropped and acids were building up in his blood. Despite the prominent tattoo, the doctors didn't know if they should trust it. They contacted social workers to try to find his next of kin and made several attempts to revive him enough to get him to confirm his wishes. But the revival attempts failed.
The consultants advised that the tattoo be treated as an authentic preference, and a Do not resuscitate order was written. Later on, the patient's official out-of-hospital DNR order was found, and it matched the preference expressed by the tattoo. The patient ended up dying later that night.
Let this be a lesson to you: Don't get an ironic "Do Not Resuscitate" tattoo.
An Unconscious Patient with a DNR Tattoo (open, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1713344) (DX) (PDF)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:47AM (1 child)
It is important to the meaning of the amendment. However, "important to the meaning" doesn't mean that it is a restrictive clause that limits the rights of "the people" to only those of the "militia".
That's really not true. Take the beginning of the 4th, for example:
The "in their persons, houses, papers and effects" is really explanatory. The real "meat" of the amendment is that the people are secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures," which has led SCOTUS over the years to expand definitions as technology changes beyond "papers" and "houses" to things like cars and electronics and such. (Though not always...)
It would be more accurate to say that the 2nd amendment is the only one where there's a strong contingent that wants to read explanatory words as a restrictive clause. Obviously militias were important to the Founders; that's why they're mentioned. It's also a reminder about why the right is so important.
An example I always give for this is just to change the wording to something less controversial:
"A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the functioning of a democratic state, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
In that case, I think very few people would read the text as implying that only registered voters should be able to keep and read books. Instead, it seems a broad right for "the people" is being stated, with a crucial benefit to a subset (the "Electorate") enumerated so future generations remember why this is important and one place where the right is essential.
(By the way, I'm also strongly in favor of various gun regulation, as I've argued here in previous posts. But I also believe that to take away a lot of guns or impose very strong regulations, we'd require a Constitutional amendment -- not only because of the text of the 2nd, but also because its legislative history and similar versions of the amendment in other state Constitutions make it clear that a broad right was likely intended.)
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:31PM
Modded up. Great reply - very insightful.