Over the past decade, public discussion has focused on the ethics of issuing Do‐Not‐Resuscitate Orders, and the failure of many hospitals to acknowledge their actions openly. Recent efforts on the part of some hospitals to establish formal DNR guidelines that are prudent, fair, and humane, are a helpful beginning, though they cannot account for all the vagaries of illness and human communication. But concerns about DNR should not divert us from looking closely and rigorously at other, more common treatment/nontreatment (...) decisions in the critical care setting. (shrink)

End-of-life decision making frequently occurs in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is a lack of information on how a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order affects treatments received by critically ill patients in ICUs. The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare the use of life support therapies between patients with a DNR order and those without; (2) to examine life support therapies prior to and after the issuance of a DNR order; and (3) to determine the clinical factors that (...) influence the initiation of a DNR order in ICUs in Taiwan. A prospective, descriptive, and correlational study was conducted. A total of 202 patients comprising 133 (65.8%) who had a DNR order, and 69 (34.1%) who did not, participated in this study. In the last 48 hours of their lives, patients who had a DNR order were less likely to receive life support therapies than those who did not have a DNR order. Older age, being unmarried, the presence of an adult child as a surrogate decision maker, a perceived inability to survive ultimate discharge from the ICU, and longer hospitalization in the ICU were significant predictors of issuing a DNR order for critically ill patients. This study will draw attention to how, when, and by whom, critically ill patients’ preferences about DNR are elicited and honored. (shrink)

The problem of psychological pain caused by discussions of do not resuscitate status with patients is addressed. Case histories of patients with such distress are given. We propose that not all patients should be informed of their do not resuscitate status, that the information about such status be given incrementally, and that the giving of further information be guided by the patient's reaction to earlier information. While some affirm the duty of the physician always to inform the patient (...) about his or her do not resuscitate status, we affirm the duty of the physician to determine whether the patient wishes to enter into this discussion. (shrink)

Objectives: To quantify the use of do-not-resuscitate orders in a tertiary-care children’s hospital and to characterise the circumstances in which such orders are written.Design: Retrospective study conducted in a 500-bed children’s hospital in Taiwan.Patients: The course of 101 patients who died between January 2002 and December 2005 was reviewed. The following data were collected: age at death, gender, disease and its status, place of death and survival. There were 59 males and 42 females with a median age of 103 (...) months . 50 children had leukaemias, and 51 had malignancies other than leukaemia. The t test and the χ2 test were applied as appropriate.Results: The study found that 44% of patient deaths occurred in the paediatric oncology ward; 29% of patient deaths occurred in the intensive care unit; and 28% of patients died in their home or at another hospital. Other findings included the following: 46 of 101 patients died after attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 55 died with a DNR order in effect. The mean age at death was 9.8 years in both groups with or without DNR orders.Conclusions: From the study of patient deaths in this tertiary-care children’s hospital, it was concluded that an explicit DNR order is now the rule rather than the exception, with more DNR orders being written for patients who have been ill longer, who have solid tumours, who are not in remission and who are in the ward. (shrink)

Background: Since the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, numerous policy mandates and institutional measures have been implemented. It is unknown to what extent those measures have affected end-of-life care, particularly with regard to the do-not-resuscitate order.Methods: Retrospective cohort study to assess associations of the frequency and timing of DNR orders with advance directive status, patient demographics, physician’s specialty and extent of documentation of discussion on end-of-life care.Results: DNR orders were more frequent for patients on a medical service than (...) on a surgical service and were made earlier in the hospital stay for medicine than for surgical patients . 22.18% of all patients had some form of an advance directive in their chart, yet this variable had no impact on the frequency or timing of DNR ordering. Documentation of DNR discussion was significantly associated with the frequency of DNR orders and the time from DNR to death .Conclusions: The physician’s specialty continues to have a significant impact on the frequency and timing of DNR orders, while advance directive status still has no measurable impact. Additionally, documentation of end-of-life discussions is significantly associated with varying DNR ordering rates and timing. (shrink)

The question of whether Do Not Resuscitate orders should be sustained in the operating room was brought to our ethics committee by a pulmonologist and involved one of his patients for whom he serves as a primary care physician. His patient, a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease was electing, for comfort purposes, to have a hip pinning following a fracture. At the same time, she wished to have a DNR order covering her entire hospital stay. The anesthesiologist described (...) her direction as “improper” and refused to participate in surgical procedures if DNR orders extended to the operating room. The patient refused to rescind the order during surgery. As a result, the surgery was canceled to the great chagrin of the patient. (shrink)

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are typically signed by physicians in conjunction with patients or their surrogate decision makers in order to instruct healthcare providers not to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Both the medical literature and CPR guidelines fail to address when it is appropriate for physicians to sign DNR orders without any knowledge of a patient’s wishes. We explore the ethical issues surrounding instituting a twophysician DNR for a dying patient with multiple comorbidities and no medical record on file, no (...) advance directives, and no surrogate decision maker. Through this case we also highlight the issues of poor prognostication and the reversal of a DNR in such circumstances. (shrink)

Elderly persons are living longer with debilitating illnesses and are at risk for suicide. They are also more likely to have a living will with a DNR order. With the medical culture’s emphasis on patient autonomy, an ethical approach that respects the dignity of these suffering human persons is needed. Suicide must be viewed as an act against the principle of life and the intrinsic good of the human being. Beneficence outweighs autonomy in such cases. Medical providers are at risk (...) of mediate material cooperation with the evil of such an act if they fail to preserve a life that can be saved. DNR orders should be reversed in these situations until these patients receive psychological treatment and pain relief. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.4 : 661–671. (shrink)

This paper clarifies some of the longstanding difficulties in negotiating Do Not Resuscitate Orders by reframing the source of the dilemmas as not residing with either the patient or the physician but with their relationship. The recommendations are low cost and low-tech ways of making major improvements to the care and quality of life of the most ill patients in hospital. With impending physician-assisted death legislation there is an urgency to find more efficient and beneficial ways for clinicians and (...) patients to address resuscitation issues at the bedside. Paradigmatic shifts in the nature of the patient-physician relationship will need to be encouraged by the larger community. These encouraged shifts address the concepts of passive/inferior patient – active/superior physician, patient ownership of and access to all their health care information, and treating the patient as a major participant in the delivery of health care. These recommended changes will not in themselves make any patient, physician or other healthcare provider more humane and open in the patient’s final days. The goal, instead, is to have changes to the context of the discussion provide an encouraging environment for more open communication and a balanced relationship among participants with the patient being the most important. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungWährend die juristische und medizinethische Rechtfertigung des Verzichts auf Wiederbelebung in Deutschland akademisch hinreichend geklärt ist, zeigen sich doch erhebliche Unterschiede und zahlreiche Probleme bei der praktischen Umsetzung in der Klinik. Innerhalb des interdisziplinären Behandlungsteams gehören Kommunikationsdefizite und die Intransparenz der ethischen Entscheidungsprozesse zu den häufigsten Schwierigkeiten, die in der Medizinischen Klinik für Nephrologie und Hypertensiologie am Klinikum Nürnberg mit der Implementierung einer hausinternen Leitlinie, der Anordnung zum Verzicht auf Wiederbelebung, behoben werden sollten.Die Evaluationsstudie, die 118 VaW-Anordnungen bei 4718 Behandlungsfällen (...) im Zeitraum von November 2004 bis Juli 2005 einschloss, verfolgte einen dualen Forschungsansatz. Eine quantitative Dokumentationsanalyse aller VaW-Protokolle wurde mit der leitfadengestützten Befragung von 16 Ärzten und Pflegekräften kombiniert.Teambesprechungen waren in 62,4 %, Entscheidungsgründe in 74,6 % aller VaW-Protokolle dokumentiert. Die Interviews ergaben eine positive, aber berufsgruppendifferente Bewertung der Kommunikation, wobei die Pflegenden kritischer eingestellt waren als ihre medizinischen Kollegen. Die VaW-Dokumentation bewirkte nach Auffassung aller Befragten eine hohe Nachvollziehbarkeit und Transparenz. Die VaW-Anordnung wurde darüber hinaus als gut anwendbar und praxistauglich betrachtet. Nahezu alle Befragten sprachen sich für eine Beibehaltung des VaWVerfahrens in der Klinik aus.Die Implementierung der VaW-Anordnung als hausinterne Leitlinie und Dokumentationsstandard hat zu einer Förderung des interdisziplinären Dialogs und zu einer erheblichen Verbesserung der Transparenz der ethischen Entscheidungsprozesse im Rahmen des Verzichts auf Wiederbelebung geführt. Hilfreich und praxistauglich erfreut sich die VaW-Anordnung einer hohen Akzeptanz bei Pflegenden und Medizinern und wird seit drei Jahren in der Nephrologie am Klinikum Nürnberg konsequent angewendet. (shrink)

Physicians play a substantial role in facilitating communication regarding life-supporting treatment decision-making including do-not-resuscitate in the intensive care units. Physician-related fact...

Some children living with life-shortening medical conditions may wish to attend school without the threat of having resuscitation attempted in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest on the school premises. Despite recent attention to in-school do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, no assessment of state laws or school policies has yet been made. We therefore sought to survey a national sample of prominent school districts and situate their policies in the context of relevant state laws. Most (80%) school districts sampled did not have policies, (...) regulations, or protocols for dealing with student DNARs. A similar majority (76%) either would not honor student DNARs or were uncertain about whether they could. Frequent contradictions between school policies and state laws also exist. Consequently, children living with life-shortening conditions who have DNARs may not have these orders honored if cardiopulmonary arrest were to occur on school premises. Coordinated efforts are needed to harmonize school district, state, and federal approaches in order to support children and families' right to have important medical decisions honored. (shrink)

Objectives: To study the attitudes of both medical and non-medical students towards the do-not-resuscitate decision in a university in Hong Kong, and the factors affecting their attitudes.Methods: A questionnaire-based survey conducted in the campus of a university in Hong Kong. Preferences and priorities of participants on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in various situations and case scenarios, experience of death and dying, prior knowledge of DNR and basic demographic data were evaluated.Results: A total of 766 students participated in the study. There were (...) statistically significant differences in their DNR decisions in various situations between medical and non-medical students, clinical and preclinical students, and between students who had previously experienced death and dying and those who had not. A prior knowledge of DNR significantly affected DNR decision, although 66.4% of non-medical students and 18.7% of medical students had never heard of DNR. 74% of participants from both medical and non-medical fields considered the patient’s own wish as the most important factor that the healthcare team should consider when making DNR decisions. Family wishes might not be decisive on the choice of DNR.Conclusions: Students in medical and non-medical fields held different views on DNR. A majority of participants considered the patient’s own wish as most important in DNR decisions. Family wishes were considered less important than the patient’s own wishes. (shrink)

A recent paper in this journal (1) suggests that involving terminally ill patients in choices concerned with Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) produces 'psychological pain' and therefore is ill-advised. Such a claim rests on anecdotal observations made by the authors. In this paper I suggest that drawing conclusions in ethics, no less than in science, requires a rigorous framework and cannot be relegated to personal observation of a few cases. The paper concludes by suggesting that patients, if we acknowledge their valid interest (...) in making their own choices, must themselves be allowed to make a prior choice about choosing. Those who may not wish to choose may properly be relieved of this burden and may allow another to choose for them. Routinely allowing others to make choices for competent adults, however, is likely to decrease communication with the dying patient and to introduce an atmosphere of suspicion and fear and to exclude the competent patient from his/her rightful place in the community. (shrink)

The Patient Self Determination Act of 1991 brought much needed attention to the importance of advance care planning and surrogate decision-making. The purpose of this law is to ensure that a patient’s preferences for medical care are recognized and promoted, even if the patient loses decision-making capacity. In general, patients are presumed to have DMC. A patient’s DMC may come under question when distortions in thinking and understanding due to illness, delirium, depression or other psychiatric symptoms are identified or suspected. (...) Physicians and other healthcare professionals working in hospital settings where medical illness is frequently comorbid with depression, adjustment disorders, demoralization and suicidal ideation, can expect to encounter ethical tension when medically sick patients who are also depressed or suicidal request do not resuscitate orders. (shrink)

In this article, we comment on Ciaffa’s article ‘The Ethics of Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for COVID-19 Patients.’ We summarize his argument criticizing futility and utilitarianism as the key ethical justifications for unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders for patients with COVID-19.

Physician-written “do not resuscitate” DNR orders elicit negative reactions from stakeholders that may decrease appropriate end-of-life care. The semantic significance of the phrase has led to a proposed replacement of DNR with “allow natural death” . Prior to this investigation, no scientific papers address the impact of such a change. Our results support this proposition due to increased likelihood of endorsement with the term AND.

Advance directives allow people to accept or decline medical interventions and to appoint surrogate decision makers if they become incapacitated. Living wills are written in ambiguous terms and require interpretation by clinical providers. Living wills cannot cover all conceivable end-of-life decisions. There is too much variability in clinical decision making to make an all-encompassing living will possible. While there are many limitations of advance directives, this article reviews some of the most troublesome ethical dilemmas with regard to advance directives.

This paper examines several decision-making models that have been proposed to limit the use of CPR for COVID-19 patients. My main concern will be to assess proposals for the implementation of unilateral DNRs — i.e., orders to withhold CPR without the agreement of patients or their surrogates.

Following the introduction of do-not-resuscitate orders in the 1970s, there was widespread misinterpretation of the term among healthcare professionals. In this brief report, we present findings from a survey of healthcare professionals. Our aim was to examine current understanding of the term do-not-attempt-resuscitate, decision-making surrounding DNAR and awareness of current guidelines. The survey was distributed to doctors and nurses in a university teaching hospital and affiliated primary care physicians in Dublin via email and by hard copy at educational (...) meetings from July to December 2014. A total of 519 completed the survey. The response rate in the hospital doctors group was 35.5%, 19.8% in the nurses group but 68.8% in the specialist nurses group and 40% in the primary care physician group.Alarmingly, our results demonstrate that 26.8% of staff nurses and 30% of primary care physicians surveyed believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not receive any/at least one of a list of simple treatments including antibiotics, physiotherapy, intravenous fluids, pain relief, oxygen, nasogastric feeding or airway suctioning, which were higher percentages compared to the other hospital doctors and experienced nurses groups with statistically significant differences. Furthermore, a higher percentage of staff nurses and primary care physicians believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not be referred to hospital from home/a nursing home, when compared with other healthcare groups. Our findings highlight continued misunderstanding and over-interpretation of DNAR orders. Further collaboration and information is required for meaningful Advance Care Plans. (shrink)

The Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) was introduced into our trust in an attempt to improve patient involvement and experience of their treatment in hospital and to embrace and clarify a wider remit of treatment options than the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order currently offers. Our experience suggests that the patient and family are rarely engaged in DNR discussions. This is acutely relevant considering that the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) now obliges these discussions to take place. The TEP is a (...) form that the doctor completes, ideally with the competent patient or close relative, documenting what treatment options would be appropriate if that patient were to become acutely unwell. Ventilation of the lungs, cardiac resuscitation, renal replacement therapy, intravenous fluids and antibiotics are all discussed. The study evaluated patient and relative experiences with the TEP. 55 patients or their relatives were interviewed regarding their experience of the TEP and thoughts regarding the process. 96% of patients and relatives evaluated thought that the TEP was a good idea. Free text comments were all positive and only 34% of patients claimed to feel anxious when completing the form. Following this study, the TEP has been expanded hospital wide and into the community within our trust. Discussions are currently taking place in hospitals within our region to introduce the TEP form into other local trusts. (shrink)

Guidelines recommend a ‘do-not-resuscitate’ code status for inpatients in which cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts are considered futile because of low probability of survival with good neurological outcome. We retrospectively assessed the prevalence of DNR code status and its association with presumed CPR futility defined by the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score and the Clinical Frailty Scale in patients hospitalised in the Divisions of Internal Medicine and Traumatology/Orthopedics at the University Hospital of Basel between September 2018 and June 2019. The (...) definition of presumed CPR futility was met in 467 of 2889 patients. 866 patients had a DNR code status. In a regression model adjusted for age, gender, main diagnosis, nationality, language and religion, presumed CPR futility was associated with a higher likelihood of a DNR code status. In the subgroup of patients with presumed futile CPR, 144 of 467 had a full code status, which was independently associated with younger age, male gender, non-Christian religion and non-Swiss citizenship. We found a significant proportion of hospitalised patients to have a full code status despite the fact that CPR had to be considered futile according to an established definition. Whether these decisions were based on patient preferences or whether there was a lack of patient involvement in decision-making needs further investigation. (shrink)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of an intervention on the understanding and use of DNR orders by physicians; to assess the impact of understanding the importance of involving competent patients in DNR decisions. Design: Prospective clinical interventional study. Setting: Internal medicine department (70 beds) of the hospital of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. Participants: Nine junior physicians in postgraduate training. Intervention: Information on the ethics of DNR and implementation of new DNR orders. Measurements and main results: Accurate understanding, interpretation, and use of (...) DNR orders, especially with respect to the patients’ involvement in the decision were measured. Junior doctors writing DNR orders had an extremely poor understanding of what DNR orders mean. The correct understanding of the definition of a DNR order increased from 31 to 93% (p<0.01) after the intervention and the patients’ involvement went from 17% to 48% (p<0.01). Physicians estimated that 75% of their DNR patients were mentally competent at the time of the decision. Conclusion: An intervention aimed at explaining the ethical principles and the definition of DNR orders improves understanding of them, and their implementation, as well as patient participation. Specific efforts are needed to increase the involvement of mentally competent patients in the decision. (shrink)

Purpose: Physicians are often reluctant to discuss “Do Not Resuscitate” orders with patients. Although perceived self-efficacy is a known prerequisite for behavioural change, little is understood about the confidence of physicians regarding DNR discussions.Subjects and methods: A survey of 217 internal medicine attendings and 132 housestaff at two teaching hospitals about their attitudes and confidence regarding DNR discussions.Results: Participants were significantly less confident about their ability to discuss DNR orders than to discuss consent for medical procedures , and this (...) was true for both attendings and housestaff . In a multivariate logistic model of confidence regarding DNR discussions, women were less confident than men ; house officers were less confident than attendings , those who were less confident of their ability to discuss medical procedures were less confident discussing DNR , and those who found talking to patients about DNR orders very difficult reported less confidence than those who did not .Conclusion: We conclude that physicians’ confidence regarding DNR discussions is low compared with their confidence regarding other medical discussions and that confidence varies by sex and perceived difficulty of the task. Efforts to improve DNR discussions should explore the need to tailor educational interventions to fit these characteristics. (shrink)

In the case of an intellectually disabled patient, the attending physician was restricted from writing a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. Although the rationale for this restriction was to protect the patient from an inappropriate quality of life judgment, it resulted in a worse death than the patient would have experienced had he not been disabled. Such restrictions that are intended to protect intellectually disabled patients may violate their right to equal treatment and to a dignified death.

OBJECTIVE: To report and analyse the pattern of end-of-life decision making for terminal Chinese cancer patients. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. SETTING: A cancer clinical trials unit in a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: From April 1992 to August 1997, 177 consecutive deaths of cancer clinical trial patients were studied. MAIN MEASUREMENT: Basic demographic data, patient status at the time of signing a DNR consent, or at the moment of returning home to die are documented, and circumstances surrounding these events evaluated. RESULTS: (...) DNR orders were written for 64.4% of patients. Patients in pain (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.89), especially if requiring opioid analgesia (odds ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.77), were factors associated with a higher probability of such an order. Thirty-five patients were taken home to die, a more likely occurrence if the patient was over 75 years (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.34), had children (odds ratio 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.79), had Taiwanese as a first language (odds ratio 6.74, 95% CI 3.04-14.93), or was unable to intake orally (odds ratio 2.73, 95% CI 1.26-5.92). CPR was performed in 30 patients, none survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: DNR orders are instituted in a large proportion of dying Chinese cancer patients in a cancer centre, however, the order is seldom signed by the patient personally. This study also illustrates that as many as 20% of dying patients are taken home to die, in accordance with local custom. (shrink)

Consent ought to be required to withhold treatment that is in a patient’s best interests to receive. Do not resuscitate orders are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. If patient input results in that patient dissenting to the DNR order then individual physicians are not justified in overriding such dissent. To do so would give unjustifiable primacy to the values of the individual (...) physician. Therefore patient consent is effectively required to write a DNR order. Patient dissent to a DNR order should trigger a fair process mechanism to resolve the dispute. (shrink)

BackgroundThe values and attitudes of healthcare professionals influence their handling of ‘do-not-attempt-resuscitation’ (DNAR) orders. The aim of this study was a) to describe attitudes, perceptions and practices among Swedish physicians and nurses towards discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and DNAR orders with patients and their relatives, and b) to investigate if the physicians and nurses were familiar with the national ethical guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study based on a questionnaire and was conducted at 19 wards in two regional (...) hospitals and one county hospital.Results210 physicians and 312 nurses (n = 522) responded to the questionnaire. Every third (35%) professional had read the guidelines with a lower proportion of physicians (29%) compared to nurses (38%). Around 40% of patients had the opportunity or ability to participate in the DNAR discussion. The DNAR decision was discussed with 38% of patients and the prognosis with 46%. Of the patients who were considered to have the ability to participate in the discussion, 79% did so. The majority (81%) of physicians and nurses believed that patients should always be asked about their preferences before a DNAR decision was made.ConclusionsSwedish healthcare professionals take a patient’s autonomy into account regarding DNAR decisions. Nevertheless, as 50% of patients were considered unable to participate in the DNAR discussion, questions remain about the timing of patient participation and whether more discussions could have been conducted earlier. Given the uncertainty about timing, the majority of patients deemed competent participated in DNAR discussions. (shrink)

Objective:To evaluate the effect of an intervention on the understanding and use of DNR orders by physicians; to assess the impact of understanding the importance of involving competent patients in DNR decisions.Design:Prospective clinical interventional study.Setting:Internal medicine department (70 beds) of the hospital of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.Participants:Nine junior physicians in postgraduate training.Intervention:Information on the ethics of DNR and implementation of new DNR orders.Measurements and main results:Accurate understanding, interpretation, and use of DNR orders, especially with respect to the patients’ involvement in the (...) decision were measured. Junior doctors writing DNR orders had an extremely poor understanding of what DNR orders mean. The correct understanding of the definition of a DNR order increased from 31 to 93% (p<0.01) after the intervention and the patients’ involvement went from 17% to 48% (p<0.01). Physicians estimated that 75% of their DNR patients were mentally competent at the time of the decision.Conclusion:An intervention aimed at explaining the ethical principles and the definition of DNR orders improves understanding of them, and their implementation, as well as patient participation. Specific efforts are needed to increase the involvement of mentally competent patients in the decision. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 11, Page 24-25, November 2011.

Background Individual physicians and physician-associated factors may influence patients’/surrogates’ autonomous decision-making, thus influencing the practice of do-not-resuscitate orders. The objective of this study was to examine the influence of individual attending physicians on signing a DNR order. Methods This study was conducted in closed model, surgical intensive care units in a university-affiliated teaching hospital located in Northern Taiwan. The medical records of patients, admitted to the surgical intensive care units for the first time between June 1, 2011 and December (...) 31, 2013 were reviewed and data collected. We used Kaplan–Meier survival curves with log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to compare the time from surgical intensive care unit admission to do-not-resuscitate orders written for patients for each individual physician. The outcome variable was the time from surgical ICU admission to signing a DNR order. Results We found that each individual attending physician’s likelihood of signing do-not-resuscitate orders for their patients was significantly different from each other. Some attending physicians were more likely to write do-not-resuscitate orders for their patients, and other attending physicians were less likely to do so. Conclusion Our study reported that individual attending physicians had influence on patients’/surrogates’ do-not-resuscitate decision-making. Future studies may be focused on examining the reasons associated with the difference of each individual physician in the likelihood of signing a do-not-resuscitate order. (shrink)

Since their introduction as ‘no code’ in the 1980s and their later formalisation to ‘do not resuscitate’ orders, such directions to withhold potentially life-extending treatments have been accompanied by multiple ethical issues. The arguments for when and why to instigate such orders are explored, including a consideration of the concept of futility, allocation of healthcare resources, and reaching a balance between quality of life and quality of death. The merits and perils of discussing such decisions with patients and/or their (...) relatives are reviewed and the unintended implications of ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ orders are examined. Finally, the paper explores some alternative methods to approaching the resuscitation decision, and calls for empirical evaluation of such methods that may reduce the ethical dilemmas physicians currently face. (shrink)

Venneman and colleagues argue that “do not resuscitate” (DNR) is problematic and should be replaced by “allow natural death” (AND). Their argument is flawed. First, while end-of-life discussions should be as positive as possible, they cannot and should not sidestep painful but necessary confrontations with morality. Second, while DNR can indeed be nonspecific and confusing, AND merely replaces one problematic term with another. Finally, the study’s results are not generalisable to the populations of physicians and working nurses and certainly (...) do not support the authors’ claim that there is a movement to replace DNR with AND. (shrink)

Patients in the United States have been subject to an evergrowing “avalanche” of unwanted medical treatment. This is economically, ethically, and legally wrong. As one advocacy campaign puts it: “Patients should receive the medical treatments they want. Nothing less. Nothing more.” First, unwanted medical treatment constitutes waste (and often fraud or abuse) of scarce healthcare resources. Second, it is a serious violation of patients’ autonomy and self-determination. Third, but for a few rare exceptions, administering unwanted medical treatment contravenes settled legal (...) rules and principles. This “Legal Briefing” describes a central and growing role for the law. Specifically, courts and agencies have increasingly imposed penalties on healthcare providers who deliberately or negligently disregard advance directives and DNR (donot-resuscitate) orders. I group these legal developments into the following five categories: 1. Five Types of Unwanted Medical Treatment2. State and Federal Duties to Follow Advance Directives3. Doctors Hospital of Augusta v. Alicea4. Other Lawsuits for Ignoring Advance Directives5. Administrative Penalties for Ignoring Advance Directives. (shrink)

Introduction: The decision of “do not attempt resuscitation” in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest is usually made when the patients are critically ill and cannot make an informed choice. Although, various professional bodies have published guidelines, little is know about the patients’ own views regarding DNAR discussion.Aim: The aim of this study was to determine patients’ attitudes regarding discussing DNAR before they are critically ill.Methods: A prospective study was performed in a general out patients department. A questionnaire was distributed to (...) consecutive outpatients along with an explanatory leaflet in the adult outpatient clinic.Results: 364 patients completed the questionnaire . 90% of respondents wanted all patients to be asked regarding DNAR decision at some point during a hospital admission. The majority would not find a DNAR discussion distressing. Only 10% would find it upsetting, however, 48% of these still wanted a discussion. 37% of respondents wanted to discuss DNAR decisions on admission; 32% in outpatients; 17% at consent for surgery, 14% when they are critically ill. 87% of respondents would not object to their relatives being involved in making decisions about their resuscitation status. However, only 12% of the subjects in the study had been involved in discussing the resuscitation status of a relative and 21% would not be comfortable to discuss a relative’s resuscitation status. Although 33% of patients preferred their resuscitation status to simply be documented within their clinical notes, 77% wanted it to be more easily accessible.Conclusions: This study suggests that contrary to current practice most patients want to discuss their DNAR status prior to becoming critically ill. This includes half of the small number that find it distressing to discuss. Although most patients are comfortable with relatives being involved in discussing DNAR, a significant proportion do not want their relatives to be asked. Furthermore, once a decision has been made, the majority of patients want it to be more accessible than current practice allows. (shrink)

Two questionnaire surveys are reported describing the attitudes of 127 Japanese nurses towards developing a do not resuscitate (DNR) policy. The background information features the Japanese health care situations: a lack of policies for end-of-life care decisions; frequent life-prolonging treatments initiated without the patient’s knowledge or consent; ethical dilemmas confronting nurses in relation to such treatments; and the public’s growing concern over end-of-life care. A hypothetical DNR policy was used in which a health professional asked patients about their decision (...) regarding DNR. The respondents supported this model DNR policy as an ideal. However, they noted that this policy was at variance with Japanese culture. Recommendations for Japanese nurses emerged from the data. In order to make an impact on end-of-life decision making, nurses should take culturally appropriate actions: (1) teach patients about their rights; and (2) work with physicians to provide patients with accurate information about their condition. (shrink)

Background To characterize patients dying in a community hospital with or without attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to describe patient involvement in, documentation of, and compliance with decisions on resuscitation. Methods All patients who died in Kalmar County Hospital during January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2016 were included. All information from the patients’ electronic chart was analysed. Results Of 660 patients female), 30 were pronounced dead in the emergency department after out-of-hospital CPR. Of the remaining 630 patients a DNAR order (...) had been documented in 558 patients. Seventy had no DNAR order and 2 an explicit order to do CPR. In 43 of these 70 patients CPR was unsuccessfully attempted while the remaining 27 patients died without attempting CPR. In 2 of 558 patients CPR was attempted despite a DNAR order in place. In 412 patients the DNAR order had not been discussed with neither patient nor family/friends. Moreover, in 75 cases neither patient nor family/friends were even informed about the decision on code status. Conclusions In general, a large percentage of patients in our study had a DNAR order in place. However, 27 patients died without CPR attempt or DNAR order. DNAR orders had not been discussed with the patient/surrogate in almost three fourths of the patients. Further work has to be done to elucidate the barriers to discussions of CPR decisions with the patient. (shrink)

Background Doctors and the Sri Lanka Medical Association recognise the importance of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions and disclosure; however, few previous studies exist examining these practices in Sri Lanka. Resuscitation decisions have seen significant changes in the UK in recent years, with a legal imperative for clear communication and a move to understand patients’ preferred outcomes before recommending clinical guidance. Methods Participants from two Sri Lankan hospitals were selected purposively to represent a range of specialties and seniorities for (...) semi-structured interview. Results Fifteen participants of varying seniorities were recruited. Practice of do not resuscitate and informing patients is highly variable; there is no definitive guidance published on best practice of these issues in Sri Lanka. Participants felt that inpatients were generally not aware of their medical conditions or treatments. With the poor social and palliative care service provision in Sri Lanka comes a pressure to involve families in the patient care, particularly at the end of life. This feeds into a culture where patient autonomy plays a subordinate role to family involvement. Participants understand the ethical need for do not resuscitate, however, it is viewed to be a consideration for when the patient is close to death. Conclusion Do not resuscitate does not appear to be a prominent feature of end-of-life care in Sri Lanka and thus consideration of the appropriateness of resuscitation is commonly left late in a patient’s deterioration. Education, inclination and respect for doctors are suggested barriers to effective inclusion of patients in their healthcare and end-of-life decisions. (shrink)

BackgroundThe acceptance or practical application of the do-not-resuscitate order is substantially dependent on internal or personal factors; in a way that decision-making about this issue can be specific to each person. Moreover, most nurses feel morally and emotionally stressed and confused during the process decision-making regarding DNR order. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order in a systematic review.MethodsThis critical survey was conducted using a systematic review protocol. To this end, the (...) most relevant articles published in domestic and foreign databases with no time limits until October 2018 were searched. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were articles on DNR order, studies about nurses’ attitudes, descriptive and analytical research papers, as well as those with download links and full texts. The given articles were also assessed in terms of their quality and their main results were extracted.ResultsOf the total number of 1663 articles searched in the process of systematic review to investigate nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order, 88 articles were included in the full-text review step and finally 10 articles, meeting the inclusion criteria, were found. Assessing the quality of articles included in this review showed that 8 articles, in general, were of good quality and 2 studies were characterized with moderate quality. The main factors associated with nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order were grouped into three categories of (1) nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order, (2) guidelines for DNR order, and (3) decision-making by patients and their families about DNR order. In most of the studies examined, nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order were reported positive.ConclusionIt seemed that nurses were willing to get involved in DNR order and each hospital was recommended to develop a written DNR policy directing individuals and avoiding their confusion in this respect. (shrink)

Caring for children with life-shortening illnesses is a humbling task. While some decisions are simple and safe, the emotionally-charged choices regarding how to best care for these children often...