[ocankhe]

A article by AP regarding who should not receive care in a flu pandemic that is associated with a high mortality rate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/...tioning_care_2

Hope the link works.

[traumaRUs]

I work with nephrology patients and they too would not be treated I'm sure.

It is the concept of triage and do the most good for the most people.

[elkpark]

"He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive."

Exactly -- this is standard battlefield/disaster triage protocol; I learned it back in nursing school in the '80s; there's nothing new about it. It's only controversial in the sense that most Americans never need to think in those terms.

[HonestRN]

'CHICAGO — Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.
Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia......."


http://www.comcast.net/news/articles...ationing.Care/

[ocankhe]

I've read this, and similar, articles and it will (should) make for an interesting discussion. An alternative question would be who should be treated first as opposed to who shouldn't be treated at all?
I do agree that if we suffer a pandenic that carries a high mortality rate we do not have the facilities, equipment, or personnel to cope. So how do we choose?

[elkpark]

The principles/priorities laid out in the article are standard, traditional battlefield/disaster triage. There's nothing new or different about that; I learned it in nursing school in the '80s. The only reason is might seem shocking or possibly "unethical" is because most of us in the US never need to think in those terms.

(BTW. a related issue -- Have you looked at the long-running thread here about how many members would show up to work in the event of a pandemic? The poll is currently running at less than 50% (who say they would come to work).)

[cardiacRN2006]

Yep, this is the same triage criteria that I learned about in EMT class.

It doens't even have to be a pandemic, the use of field triage can happen with a several car pile-up.

'Do the most good for the most people'...

[Katnip]

I agree. There is nothing really shocking or surprising in this. In a disaster, and a major flu pandemic would qualify, you have to do the most you can with limited resources.

[aeauooo]

This is nothing new at all

A couple of years ago while working on my BSN I did a practicum with the infection control department at my hospital. At their request, I researched pandemic preparations and responses and made a PowerPoint presentation for the hospital to use to educate nurses about pandemic flu and what would happen during a mass casualty event.

We have known about H5N1 for several years now, and there is on-going intense surveillance. When the pandemic occurs, we will not be caught unaware.

Nurses and other essential personnel are at the top of the list of people who will receive prophylactic antivirals.

[earle58]

to me, this is common sense 101.
it shouldn't be an emotionally charged, ethical issue.
i mean, it would be just by the nature of the situation.
but those who have been cut from the priorities, are sound and logical rationales.
let's just hope it never comes to this.

leslie