First Responder Family Member Request Form: Fill & Download for Free

This question got me thinking. As a doctor I'm lucky to have several memorable instances with patients that would qualify for the list. I'll only bore you with one.A 20-year-old man turned up at my hospital clinic last year with a large bleeding mass growing from his left eye socket (orbit). He had had this mass gradually growing since birth and it was so huge that in the 20 long years the mass had by now eaten up the eye. So the eye socket was filled only with this angry red mass.When I first saw him he didn't talk to me at all. He didn't even respond to my questions. His relatives who had accompanied him were answering all my questions. I assumed him to be hearing and speech impaired despite his family members insisting that it was not the case. He just had a forlorn look staring into empty space. I felt really bad for that boy who had to carry this huge mass for nearly 20 years. I'm sure everyone in his school/neighborhood would have made fun of him and made him a social outcast. He seemed to have lost confidence in doctors ever correcting his problem so I could understand his depressed body language.From the history that I gleaned from the family members, over the years he and his family had been visiting several hospitals and as many doctors. The first incision biopsy (sample) nearly 16years ago revealed that it was not a cancer but a benign mass. Over the years that followed there were several such incision biopsies done but none of the doctors was willing to risk removing the complete tumor.Two reasons:The patient was very poor and was unable to pay for extensive surgeryNone of the government hospital doctors had the expertise or facilities to perform this surgery safely.I had to confirm with an incision biopsy whether the benign mass had converted into a cancer in the 8 years since the last biopsy. The bleeding mass was a little worrying. Fortunately the sample was negative for cancer. It was a Vascular Harmartoma - not life threatening but still needed to be removed. I called his family over to discuss surgery to remove the whole tumor. They were a little surprised that I had offered surgery since I was the first surgeon who was not pushing the case towards someone else. They wanted to get it done but there was a problem. I work in a private cancer hospital and the patient was extremely poor. I couldn't convince the management to do this surgery pro bono. I offered to waive my fees but the hospital still refused waive off the rest of the fees (since it was not some life-saving surgery and they had several cancer patients who needed urgent surgery they couldn't afford). The hospital however was willing to go ahead with the surgery "at cost" due to my request. This cost was still significant.I asked the family members to contact their local MP/MLA for financial help. In the process of making contact with some minister, a local TV news channel got drift of this story and broadcast it. This case got some more media coverage in vernacular newspapers. Due to this increased heat, the state health ministry got in touch with the hospital and promised to release funds from the chief minister's fund for the surgery. With the political and media pressure mounting, the hospital gave a go ahead for surgery even before funds were released (I don't think the money was ever released).I performed the surgery on this patient along with a team of surgeons we had formed for this particular surgery. The surgery lasted for almost 8 hours but nothing extraordinary for a case like this. The surgery itself was kind of a routine affair for us but getting this patient on our operating table proved to be the most challenging aspect. The other surgeons and anesthetist too waived off their fees like I did. It was quite satisfying to note that we doctors could do this in a private hospital for free while everyone accuse doctors of being money sucking leeches.In the immediate follow up, the boy still remained quiet but responded to my questions with head nods. He still wasn't speaking but I came to know he could hear me well. His body language was definitely getting better with each of his follow ups.Four months after surgery, he was ready for a silicone prosthesis with an artificial eye on the left side of the face which would get him as close to normal looking as possible. On the follow up just immediately after the prosthesis fitting, I asked him how he was doing, fully expecting a reply from one of his uncles behind. To my utter surprise, the 20 year old young man replied with great confidence that he was alright and gave me a beaming smile to go with it. He must have been smiling for the first time in years.That was among the most memorable moments as a doctor till date and I'm sure this isn't going to be the last one in a long career to follow.

Contrary to the assumptions behind this question, most royal family members (whether working royals or not) pay rent on any Crown Estate or publicly-owned properties. However, most only contribute to the portion of renovation costs that involve internal fittings/fixtures or additional requests beyond long-term maintenance and safety. In that respect, Harry and Meghan pay rent much like all other royals, but it was an unusual (but reasonable) arrangement for them to refund the renovation costs.The accommodation arrangements of British royal family accounting, who is given what residence, who is allowed to rent something else, how the rents are paid, which royals are remunerated are all very complex, sometimes inconsistent and sometimes involve complicated accounting. Much of the arrangements extend from historical ones as well as contemporary practices, and many change over time as they become subject to various pressures including from both government and the public.Frogmore Cottage, rented by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the Crown Estate in an arrangement that is similar to the rental of country properties by the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex, Princess Alexandra of Kent and many other royal family members.There are a few factors at play:Working royalsThe system of working royals in its present form was instituted by The Queen in the 1950s, to ensure that she could draw upon other royal family members to share the burden of the increasing need for her presence in the community and across the Commonwealth. This involved sitting on various boards and committees, taking on some of the royal patronages (as opposed to privately-chosen charities, etc), standing in for the sovereign at ceremonial events, openings, inaugurations, etc., and representing the sovereign overseas on foreign visits.At the time, the Queen drew upon several of her cousins—those who by virtue of being grandchildren of George V were HRHs. They included the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent, and on a casual/informal basis, Prince Michael of Kent. THis was in addition to her husband Prince Philip, her recently-widowed mother Elizabeth, and her sister Margaret.In exchange for devoting themselves to supporting the sovereign in her formal duties, the participants in the new, modern system of working royals received certain benefits:For those who were not on the civil list (i.e., receiving a parliamentary annuity, such as the Queen Mother, Philip and Margaret), a stipend was to be provided to cover living costs. The Queen paid this out of the revenue she earns from the Duchy of Lancaster.A country home.Sometimes this has been the use of a crown estate property. For example, the Queen Mother was given the use of the Royal Lodge at Windsor, Princess Alexandra of Kent was leased Thatched House Lodge.Other times this has been a gift purchased by the Queen, often as a wedding gift. For example, Gatcombe Park was purchased by the Queen for Princess Anne; Sunninghill Park was purchased for Prince Andrew although it has now been sold and he instead rents Royal Lodge in Windsor.Other times it has been the use of a house on one of the Queen’s private estates. For example, William was given the use of Anmer Hall, which forms part of the Queen’s private Sandringham estate.And other working royals have received nothing at all, as the arrangement has been based primarily on need. For example, the Duke of Gloucester, had already inherited Barnwell Manor, his father’s country home, and so no crown property in the country was offered.A grace-and-favour London apartment, often at Kensington Palace (historically the complex of homes, flats, apartments and other buildings that since the reign of George III was not used by sovereigns but primarily to house relatives and minor royals, as well as senior courtiers and Buckingham Palace bureaucrats).This practice worked for most of the twentieth century, although there was closer scrutiny on the arrangements from the late 1990s, partly from the government of John Major (at the time at which the Queen agreed to pay taxes on her personal income), partly from the government of Tony Blair (at the time reforms on funding were first discussed), and partly from the tabloid media (always on the lookout for something that could be written up as scandal).Bagshot Park, Prince Edward’s residence rented from the Crown Estate.Non-working royalsOther royal family members, including several who carry the style and titular dignity of HRH and Prince, do not undertake duties on behalf of the Queen but carry on their own careers and other interests.Prior to the present generation, many minor royals were people of leisure. Those who were not engaged in the military often lived like many other aristocrats of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century: dividing their time between country estates (their own or others), London social life, casual involvement in charitable work, artistic pursuits, etc.As family members of the sovereign, many enjoyed the privilege of a flat at Kensington Palace, St James’ Palace or elsewhere, as well as occasional handouts or a stipend (especially for unmarried or widowed princesses). This was prior to the the system of ‘working royals’ and was not considered unusual among the wealthy of elite of the United Kingdom.Anmer Hall, a gift from the Queen to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, it is a house on her privately-owned Sandringham Estate.Paying rent for propertyThe arrangements for renting have changed over time, particularly for the next generation of royals (the Queen’s children and grandchildren) but also affecting her cousins. As often happens, some changes to practice come before others. So even though a system of working royals sought to tap the extended family and make use of them as a resource, other non-working royals continued to receive handouts and accommodation by virtue of being family members.Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are a case-in-point. Prince Michael is the grandson of George V (making him an HRH), the son of the first Duke of Kent, and younger brother to the present Duke of Kent. Subsequent to a military career, Prince Michael ran a consultancy and only undertook very occasional reprsentative duties for the Queen (at no pay). But as a family member, he was given a grace-and-favour apartment at Kensington Palace after his marriage in 1978.Newspaper reports in 2008 attempted to scandalise the arrangement, claiming that Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were paying only £70 weekly for the lavish aparment despite not undertaking any public duties. Part of the ‘concern’ was that as a crown estate building located in London it could attract a much higher commercial rent.Buckingham Palace responded by announcing that “The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds,” and that the “rent payment by The Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding.”This began the process of much greater public (media) scrutiny over which royals paid how much for what quality of accommodation, and what value the British public received from them. So while the arrangements did not actually change for Prince and Princess Michael, the Queen began ensuring that rent was paid for any buildings owned publicly and held in trust by her and that the amounts were comparable to commercial rates.As a result, many royals now rent the publicly-owned buildings in which they live:Prince Edward rents Bagshot Park at £90,000 a year subject to 15-year rent reviewsPrince Andrew was given a 75-year lease on the Royal Lodge at Windsor. An agreed annual rent was bought out for the period by Andrew in exchange for him paying the £7.5 million cost of renovation and refurbishment.Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank pay rent for Ivy Cottage, a three bedroom home at Kensington Palace. Previously, the Duke of York paid approximately £20,000 annually for the apartment at St James’ Palace used by Eugenie and her older sister Princess Beatrice.How rents of country estates and London Palace apartments are actually paid has to do with the complex accounting at Buckingham Palace. In some cases, a working royal’s rent might be drawn directly from the Privy Purse (the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, used by the Queen to fund working royals), or they might pay for it themselves from other earnings (e.g., from their private investment income). Non-working royals may have the rent paid as a gift by the Queen who has substantial private income at her disposal. In other words, we do not always know if the individual pays or the Queen pays, but what we do know is that the most fair arrangement for all parties (the royals, the Queen and the taxpaper) is the typical outcome.RenovationsRenovations to Crown Estate properties have often involved some complex funding. Naturally, long-term maintenance of historically-significant buildings form part of public expenditure. Crown Estate funds are set aside for various buildings managed as Crown Estate properties, and part of the purpose of the Sovereign Grant is to fund the maintenance of the occupied royal residences. Indeed, the Sovereign Grant was increased significantly so that the Queen could manage the long-needed maintenance on Buckingham Palace to ensure its survival into the future. Such expenditure is not, of course, simply redecoration to accommodate changing tastes, but is the necessary work to ensure all long-standing buildings are maintained and remain safe.Other work, however, is funded by those who live in them, and this often involves some added extras—reorganisation of rooms to suit individual tastes, or the cost of preferential decor. For example, when Bagshot Park was renovated for Prince Edward, the costs were shared by the Crown Estate and Edward himself. Andrew’s extensive renovations on the Royal Lodge were deemed by the Crown Estate to be an investment and undertaken in exchange for paying annual rent.Kensington Palace, originally a royal residence used by William III and Mary II, Queen Anne, George I and George II, it became a complex of both large and small apartments for extended royal family members and coutiers. Famously referred to by Edward VIII as “the aunt heap” for the number of elderly royal cousins and widows of princes living there from the Victorian into the early twentieth century. Royals living there pay rent.Prince Harry and Frogmore CottageMuch like many other minor royals (e.g., Princess Alexandra), Harry rejected the offer of a home at Kensington Palace subsequent to marriage. The reasons have never been disclosed but it is of course a place closely associated with his mother and the building in which he spent much of his unhappy childhood.Frogmore Cottage, part of the Frogmore House Estate which itself is part of the Windsor Estate, was due for renovation and renewal and after some consideration was agreed as a suitable location for Harry and Meghan, who appeared content to maintain a single household in the UK (rather than the country/city model adopted by most senior royals, i.e., the Queen, Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward and William).A scheduled cost of £2.4 million for renovation and long-term maintenance was attributed to the sovereign grant, since Frogmore Cottage was an occupied royal residence. The funds were principally used to return the cottage to a single-family dwelling (it had been divided in the past) and to update outdated infrastructure. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex themselves paid for internal fittings and fixtures which they chose according to their own taste. The arrangement mirrors the same, therefore, for the cost of renovations of other crown estate buildings inhabited by royal family members.The rent was an agreed amount, and has been variously reported as around the £300,000 annual mark. Whether the Duke and Duchess are living there full-time (as the original arrangement) or maintaining the lease to provide accommodation when spending time in the United Kingdom (as they intend subsequent to the transition) they are paying rent—there is nothing particularly unusual about renting a residence that is only used part of the year. The rental arrangement is therefore in keeping with all royals paying rent for Crown Estate properties, even though the funding for that rent may come from the Queen’s privy purse (for working royals) as a private gift from the Queen’s private income (for non-working royals) or other sources.The renovations were paid for from the Sovereign Grant (excluding fittings and fixtures). As part of the arrangements for stepping down as working royals, Harry and Meghan agreed to refund the £2.4 million to the Sovereign Grant as a goodwill gesture. This was primarily on the basis that the public/media view was that the renovation expense was mis-spent if they were not intending to live there for the majority of the year and serve as working royals. It appears all parties agreed to the repayment and it was a suitable arrangement.Frogmore Cottage. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are maintaining their lease and rent payments on this crown estate property to use as a residence for whenever they are in the United Kingdom. Unusually, they agreed to repay the full cost of renovation themselves.

In both states I have worked in, DNR's are specific forms regulated by the state, with specific information, specific language used, and other requirements that have to be met in order to be valid Do Not Resuscitate orders.If the form is not completely, 100% properly filled out, or if there is a family member on scene specifically requesting the form be ignored, or if we have any other doubts whatsoever as to the validity of the form or any other request to withhold resuscitation, we were to begin CPR as normal.I've seen forms ignored and CPR started because the Doctor who signed it never put the date on the form rendering it invalid die to not being fully filled out. Or forms where the Doctor never actually signed. We performed CPR in those cases.Now usually a medic will call the hospital and talk to a Doctor (Medical Control) and it's not uncommon for them to issue orders to cease resuscitation, especially if family on scene can confirm intent for DNR.Now imagine a person out in the mall or wherever, just a tattoo…. Yeah I'm just going to assume it's a tongue in cheek, snarky punk whatever thing, not an actual legit wish. Plus it doesn't meet the legal requirements to qualify. So I'd ignore it and do CPR as normal.Now if the tattoo was of the actual form, properly, completely filled out, including Doctor signature and date, that might give pause. But I'd probably default to starting CPR while someone calls Med Control for orders. I think there was a case somewhere in Florida of something like that happening.But pretty much the law is firmly on the side of medics and first responders attempting resuscitation of someone who may or may not wish to be be resuscitated vs letting someone who wants to live die.