Kelcy
Post # 2
3/4/12
Medical Tattoos: Some Use Body Art To Convey Allergies/ End-Of-Life Wishes
This article is about the people who have given them selves tattoos to notify the people taking care of them if something happens to them about their Allergies and/ or End-of-Life wishes. They also discuss the problems with the tattoos, one of which is the fact that the tattoos aren't a legal representation of what the person wants and so it can't be acted upon. The recipiants of the tattoos were also talking about how it has made their life a lot easier to not have to worry about the bracelet that has the allergies on it because they used to break and get lost and would always have to replace them, but now that they have the tattoo they don't have to worry about this stuff any more. One example is Dr. Ed Friedlander has a tattoo of " No CPR" on his chest where a first responder would put their hands to start CPR. This would either slow down the first responder enough to check if he is a person who wishes to not be saved if they die legally. But they are worried that the tattoo might be put there with out legally getting something signed saying that they don't want to be saved when they die, and then the first responder will not be able to save them because they waited to long to find out.
I think that this is a good Idea for the future if the government legalized it because it would help first responders not being sued for not following legal wishes. I think that it is a good idea because it also helps the first responders identify what might be happening to the victim and what they need to do in order to save them or prevent further arm.
I think that this is a good Idea for the future if the government legalized it because it would help first responders not being sued for not following legal wishes. I think that it is a good idea because it also helps the first responders identify what might be happening to the victim and what they need to do in order to save them or prevent further arm.
Getting tattoos as a form of identification of allergies and wishes is very interesting to me. It makes sense that the government would not accept these as legal representations of the person's wishes, but on the other hand, why would the person get the tattoo if it didn't represent what they wanted? For instance, you wouldn't say you have a deadly peanut allergy if you didn't have one, there is no point in that. If one were to get a tattoo like this, it should definitely be acted upon in emergency situations. If the tattoo is an obvious enough statement as to an allergy or wish, it should be acted upon. There could be specific tattoo regulations, regarding what means what in a tattoo. Such as, if a person had a deadly allergy to peanuts, there could be a specific symbol that they could get tattooed. This could replace the allergy bracelets. Another way to secure the legality, would be to tattoo readable codes, or microchips into the skin. These could be quickly read in an emergency situation if necessary equipment was available. Tattoos could definitely replace allergy bracelets, but the legality may still be a difficulty.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that this is a good idea. If someone has a serious medical problem where they always have to wear a bracelet, they should be entitled to get a tattoo as an "identification." Bracelets can get lost or stolen or just break, but a tattoo will always be there if you need it because, well it is on your body forever. I think one should only get a tattoo if one has a deadly allergy and can get affected by it often, like a peanut allergy. Tattoos could replace allergy bracelets but the legal system may still be difficult.
DeleteThis is a rather interesting, getting a tattoo for medical notification is not a bad idea. This is actually an efficient form of communication of allergies to paramedics, due to some allergies causing said person losing the ability to speak due to swelling or other effects of the allergic reaction. Dr. Friedlander is a good example that was stated in this posting, his wishes being tattooed to his chest, making this an effective if interesting way of showing this. The tattoo does seam to be more effective than the bracelet, so making it legal would help quite a few people.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of getting a tattoo as a sort of necessity instead of a form of expression confused me at first. I had never thought of tattoos in this sort of way. Generally tattoos are gotten as a way to keep a memory, show tribute, or to express a passion. However, the thought of getting one to notify their wishes is a unique thought and a good idea to some extent. Though it is a good idea, these tattoos could often not be seen when needed to in a life/death situation which could lead to many legal issues.
ReplyDeleteI hope people getting these End-of-Life tattoos know that they will not legally force responders to avoid resuscitation. There are laws that protect responders from liability from any life-saving work they attempt to preform, and if I was a responder I would not hesitate to attempt to save these people.
ReplyDeleteThe people who have worry that these End-of-Life request tattoos will cause people to die who can be legally saved have nothing to worry about. I believe that these tattoos will have absolutely no effect on the actions of responders. If a responder is going to take the time to check if someone like Dr. Ed Friedlander has filled out certain legal work, the victim's chance at survival would drop significantly during that time. I'm fairly certain any responder would just ignore the tattoo and carry on their work, as they don't have to fear any legal repercussions.
On the other hand, I applaud those who use the tattoos to convey vital medical information for their creativity: I would never trust my life to a bracelet that might come undone.