MOLST was a go-to in the nursing home environment. Huge deal is we started CPR on a patient that had MOLST orders for not doing so. Of course, the main drive for the criticism came from the ultimate customer: the elderly patient's family. Resuscitating a dear parent who was not specter to pass quietly away was an emotional burden.
As for other words, I guess that all covers most eventualities. I would modify "never take a job in which you're liable to receive orders..." to "never take a job in which you're liable to receive orders that conflict with your values..."
Of course, it can be hard to know in advance!
I am not sure following orders is always the safest thing to do, either. In both the Marines and as a nurse, I was repeatedly told I was to follow legal orders. Not following an order placed the burden on me to establish my reasoning. Following an illegal order placed the burden on me to establish my reasoning.
Those cops who followed Chauvin's orders did not fare so well...
// ?If any of those structures were missing or altered, I imagine it would?be a matter of an individual assessment.??//
In other words, it all depends on the judge and the jury and luck.? In other words, following orders is always the legally safest thing to do, except when it's not.? In other words, never take a job in which you're liable to receive orders from a hierarchical superior.? In other words, be independently wealthy and never leave the house.
-
Thanks for "MOLST":
Perplexity:
A "MOLST" or Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment is a medical order form used in the United States to document a patient's preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. This form is particularly relevant for patients with serious health conditions or those who are at the end of their life. The MOLST form helps ensure that the medical care provided aligns with the patient's wishes, especially in emergency situations where the patient might not be able to communicate their preferences.
The MOLST form is recognized and used in several states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland, among others. Each state may have its specific guidelines and procedures related to the completion and implementation of the MOLST form, but the core purpose remains the same¡ªto provide clear instructions about a patient's preferences for treatments such as resuscitation, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and other life-sustaining interventions.
In New York, for example, the MOLST form is a bright pink document that must be signed by a licensed physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant. It is the only authorized form in New York State for documenting non-hospital Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not Intubate (DNI) orders. The form is intended to travel with the patient across different care settings to ensure continuity of care and adherence to the patient's wishes[1][4][6].
In Massachusetts, the MOLST form is used similarly, allowing patients with serious advancing illnesses to document their treatment preferences. The form must be filled out based on discussions between the patient, their healthcare provider, and possibly family members or other trusted advisors. This ensures that the medical orders reflect the patient's values, goals, and preferred intensity of care at the end of life[3][5].
Maryland's MOLST form serves a similar purpose and replaces the earlier EMS/DNR form. It is a portable and enduring medical order that must be honored across healthcare settings, ensuring that the patient's treatment preferences are followed by all healthcare providers, including emergency medical services[8].
Overall, the MOLST form is a critical tool in patient-centered healthcare, enabling individuals to make informed decisions about their medical treatment and ensuring that these decisions are respected across healthcare settings[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].
Citations: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
-
The states in the United States that use MOLST (Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) forms are New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Maryland[2].
Citations: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
?
The almost irresistible illusion that numbers represent facts ensures that people become increasingly convinced that their own fiction is reality. ?- ?Mattias Desmet
? Much maligned after being attributed to the German citizenry in WWII, the "following orders" rationale still has some validity. The key point is whether?it is being used to abdicate responsibility?for unethical?behavior or whether it is being more validly applied as shorthand for "I was never expected to know the full reasoning for my superior's orders but I did my best as I understood the situation."
Were the orders legal? Were they ethical? Were they moral? National guard troops controlling protests come to mind. A nurse declining to provide treatment when her facility's management clearly does not allow it. or a nurse declining to provide life-saving measures when a doctor orders them stopped and a MOLST is known to be present. There could be a case for civil liberties violations in any of these scenarios.
Then come personal values. Do mine lean toward fitting in as a reliable component of my establishment, as with?a soldier who believes in the overarching?mission of his army? Or am I more of an individualist who finds myself in a tough position, or even in the wrong profession altogether? Do my values insist I should be placing my family first? After all, I love them and they are trusting me to fill my family role...
I would call the response "good faith" if it was executed faithfully and consistently by an actor who makes his course transparent. If any of those structures were missing or altered, I imagine it would?be a matter of an individual assessment.
D
// ? ?In general, I would?say that if the official?is acting in good faith within the boundaries of his office, then no.? ? //
"I was just following orders." ?Would you call that "good faith"?? How about: ?"I was following orders that my contract obliged me to follow on pain of losing my job.? I have a family to support."
? 1.? Should public officials be chargeable for violations of civil rights of individuals to the same degree that private individual[s] are?
If we are speaking of the public official's private behaviour and if the offense is a crime or a civil violation, why not? Politicians and public?employees are not exempt from the law.
On the other hand, if this is a matter of an official act made in the execution of official's duties, this is more difficult. Some professions have internal regulatory processes for ethical or mechanical transgressions. Some are entangled in complex interactions between different forces, such as the challenges of teachers brought by the exploration of gender identity in public schools. In such a case, suing a teacher for supporting the stance of his school district?or applicable?governing body would be punishing the teacher for doing his job.
In general, I would?say that if the official?is acting in good faith within the boundaries of his office, then no. Those who violate civil rights while?transgressing the trust of their position are fair game.
2.? Have you experienced shrinkflation on?
Another new term for me.
Yes. I had to check with the wife, who handles the shopping, and my suspicions were right: she mentioned chips and cereal as examples.
Two members of my family have been growing vegetables and one even dries her own stores because the grocery?situation is getting worse for the consumer?such unobvious ways.
3.? Do you think employees of the Biden presidential campaign should be removed from the Trump trial jury pool?
Duh.
4.? Were you surprised by the taxes due on April 15 this year - whether you got a refund or not?
It was about what I expected, but my tax situation has simplified immensely since I retired.
5.? Should Trump be allowed to attend his son's high school graduation?
I would say yes if the public expense or other impact is negligible. No fanfare is necessary--a simple decision?based upon precedent, law and which considers the seriousness of the offense should suffice.?
|
