medpundit |
||
|
Wednesday, February 21, 2007The other day I had this phrase flung at me verbally by a critical care specialist who had to consult on a patient of mine who took a sudden turn for the worst. He's in bad health, to be sure, but he isn't terminal. And he wants aggressive medical therapy. Intensivist: "This guy needs a code status." Me: "He has a code status. He's a full code." Intensivist: "Who decided that, his wife?" Me: "He did." Intensivist: "I'll take care of that." Me: "That's his decision to make and we have to respect it. Sorry if it increases your work." I hope that softened his approach, because it certainly sounded as if he was going to be very confrontational with the patient who was in extremis. In any event, my patient didn't change his mind. And who can blame him? He was told five years ago he would be dead in six months from his aortic aneurysm that no one dared repair. But here he is. He was told one year ago that his foot had to be amputated, but he sought a second opinion and found a vascular surgeon who managed to save his foot as well as repair his aneurysm a few months later. He doesn't exactly have the highest confidence in the prognostication abilities of modern medicine. It's the hidden agenda behind that phrase "needs a code status," that's so frustrating - or more accurately dispiriting. It too often means "I don't want to put in the effort on this patient," rather than "we have nothing to offer this patient." That's why physician-driven euthanasia is such a dangerous trend. You can't trust us to act in your best interest instead of ours. posted by Sydney on 2/21/2007 07:41:00 AM 1 comments 1 Comments:
I too see it frequently. |
|