I Believe Do Not Resuscitate is Invoked Too Often

   There are arguments for placing a patient on Do Not Resuscitate.
   1.) If the patient is old, CPR will crush a number of ribs. Always. I'm told there are no exceptions. And, the pain is so great from broken ribs, that it isn't worth it. My thought on this argument? Just be sure you don't put someone on DNR whose ribs could recover. Pain? Don't we have pain medication?
   2.) The patient might have an organ (say, their heart) so weak that it will not respond to CPR, anyway. My thought? What is the harm in trying it? It might not do any good, but why would you not at least try it? I am speaking not so much of the electrical shock treatments and the rib-crushing CPR as of the drugs that cannot be used once you are on DNR. Why would you not at least give them a try, on the off-chance that they might save a life?
   3.) The CPR might throw a person into a seizure or damage their brain. My answer? Why not allow them the chance that they will not have a seizure or brain damage, then take them off life support if they do suffer that damage? Give hope a chance, not death.
   4.) They will suffer too much pain, and the pain will not be worth it, as they will die, anyway. My reply? We might be over-broad in what we are including as pain. If they are unconscious, are they experiencing pain? When a person's heart stops, are they even feeling pain, since they are not conscious? Perhaps it is the pain they feel once they regain consciousness? For one thing, that implies that they responded to the CPR, and that it might have done some good. What kind of pain do they experience once the shock treatments or whatever are over? Once again, don't we have pain medications?