This Monday’s table talk dealt with the widely publicized case of an unresponsive man who was brought to a hospital and found to have a tattoo stating “Do Not Resuscitate” printed on his chest. Such a tattoo aroused a variety of questions nationwide on the manner in which we communicate our end of life decisions to medical personnel. That is to say, if one wants to die, what is the clearest and most unambiguous way to indicate such a decision, and how should healthcare providers respond to alternate forms of communication–such as a tattoo–that deviate from the standard paperwork and filing for a DNR request? In particular, how should the legal repercussions of not following a patient’s request or misinterpreting such a request be considered with regards to doctors who must make critical decisions in the most time-sensitive of situations. Our discussion at the table, however, largely dealt with why someone would choose to not be resuscitated and the ethics of who permits or rejects a DNR order–as in if the patient in not in a physiologically fit state to make such a decision or if the family objects. From the discussion as a whole, I most enjoyed hearing other attendee’s opinions on the best manner to communicate end of life wishes (be it on a bracelet or in a nationalized patient record system) as well as hearing about the healthcare systems from Canada and China that differ greatly from that of the US. Overall, I greatly enjoy the table talk series in the Rose Scholars program as it gives one a chance to stay up to date and to discuss a variety of topics that are pertinent in our recent news.