When patients with chronic or acute illness in the setting of a severe chronic illness with a declining functionality so that death is expected within days to weeks, no CPR will be initiated.
The keys to the policy are severely chronic illness as represented by the patient's declining functionality; and that death is imminent. It is a policy that advocates the right of a patient to forego life sustaining technology and intervention in what is constituted as legal death when the patient's heart stops and, without CPR which could ostensibly revive the patient to life, is final death for the patient. The policy resolves decisions of the healthcare provider and the healthcare staff to act in response to the patient's cessation of life.
Today, unless a DNR order is signed by the patient or the patient's family rights designee, then the hospital staff responds to the cessation of patient life with life-saving CPR techniques. The mandate would eliminate this automatic response in cases where there was no DNR on file if the patient's condition of chronic illness is one that will result in imminent death even if the life reviving CPR is successful. This means that patients with conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and other diseases of major organs, or conditions which, like that of Terri Schiavo, whose bodies can be sustained by artificial support systems, but who would otherwise die; would be allowed to die without the intervention, and could die in peace and dignity through natural life and death processes.
It would bring to an end the public involvement, and religious organizations' involvement in the end-of-life decision making process. The process of dying would become one that is based purely on a patient's medical condition, choice, in cases where the DNR is part of the patient's care plan, and CPR would no longer be an automatic emergency response of medical personnel in cases when a patient's life ceases naturally.
The policy is not a vehicle for arbitrary decision making by the family or by medical personnel. It must be predicated on informed decision making, and that information must be made available to the patient and to the patient's family. The question of whether or not the medical provider or provider personnel failed to act appropriately should not rise as a question, because the patient and the family will be provided details of how that action is decided before the need for such action, or lack of action, arises. The DNR process must be a part of the EOL counseling provided to patients and families in settings other than hospice settings where the
A DNR mandate will eliminate future court proceedings, public involvement, and Congressional oversight of the EOL process. DNR should not be confused with termination of life, because the healthcare provider and provider personnel's inaction in providing the patient life reviving CPR is not terminating life, because life has already ceased at the point when CPR might otherwise be administered to revive a patient who might then go on to enjoy a natural period of life which would not be otherwise expected to cease within days or even weeks of the revival of the patient.
DNR is a personal medical right. It should be part of the EOL planning that each person should consider and discuss with family members prior to the point where an individual becomes incapacitated and unable to make the decision for his or herself. In cases where the patient's condition is brought on by an accident or other condition that is not anticipated as a result of disease or natural dying processes, then it becomes incumbent upon medical providers and personnel to inform honestly and truthfully family and decision makers about the DNR mandate and why the mandate would apply to their family member or loved one.
The question of whether or not the mandate is one of medical choice or institutional financial consideration is one that will no doubt be raised. Yes, the DNR mandate would save the medical provider the cost of personnel and technology associated with administering CPR to a patient who might be revived, only to die within days or weeks of that life-saving effort. Again, the key is that the patient's death is imminent, and that while CPR might revive life for the short-term, death will follow regardless of the effort. This is a mandate that is about the patient's right to die a natural process, and one that brings about an end to what is presumably a lack of quality and duration of life as a result of natural causes or causes that interrupted the quality and duration of individual life.
Dubbler, N. And Nimmons, D. (1993). Ethics on Call: Taking Charge of Life and Death
Choices, Harmony Books/Crown Publishers, New York: New York.
Jones, M. And Marks, L. (1999). Disability, Divers-ability, and Legal Change, Martins
and Nighoff Publishers, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, Netherlands.
Kieman, S. (2006). Last Rights: Rescuing the End of Life from the Medical System,
Kieman, C. (1973). The Enlightenment and Science in Eighteenth Century France, (Vol
59 of Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century), Voltaire Foundation, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Leonhardt, D. (2009). After the Great Recession, New York Times Magazine, May 3,
2009, p. MM36; found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=1, retrieved November 9, 2009.
Walter, J. And Shannon, T. (). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics: A Catholic Perspective, Rowman and Littlefield,
It should be noted that the severity of the conditions from which Kervorkian's patients suffered have been challenged. Kervorkian's…
Resuscitate (DNR) What is a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order? First used about fifty years ago, the do not resuscitate (DNR) order continues to elicit questions and discussion among medical experts and patients. The do not resuscitate order is a directive from a patient who specifically refuses consent for certain forms of medical interventions related to life-saving actions by hospital personnel. The presence of the DNR order makes it important that
Deontology and DNR: Addressing the Issue Introduction Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders are an issue for a number of care providers in hospitals, especially those who work within the context of hematology and oncology care. As Weissman (1999) notes, DNR is a stumbling block for many nurses and nursing students: for example, he states that his students unanimously struggle to understand the purpose of asking terminally-ill patients what their preferences are on
A recently enacted policy, however, enforces the use of a dogmatic and uncompromising ideological speech as a standard replacement of informed consent (Minkoff & Marshall, 2009). The policy requires a list of statements, considered "facts," which discuss risks, benefits and alternatives. These focus largely on risks, misinformation and implied government disapproval. The use of this script compels the physician to commit an ethical and professional wrong, deceive his patient with
resuscitate orders and living wills (also known as "advance directives"). Specifically, it will discuss the ethics of these orders, and how they relate to medical law and professional ethics. Living wills and do not resuscitate orders (DNR) are common methods for patients and their families to indicate their wishes during times of hospitalization and treatment. However, there are so many exceptional cases and circumstances surrounding these issues that they
In applying this article to the nursing field, it appears that combining therapies with surgery can enhance care to surgical patients. The article reaction is preoperative anxiety can be reduced with holistic nursing. Rosenberg, S. (2006). Utilizing the Language of Jean Watson's Caring Theory Within a Computerized Clinical Documentation System. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. This article describes and critiques a healthcare facility that was part of an eight-hospital organization that adopted
According to this second view, contemporaneous autonomy trumps precedent autonomy because honoring precedent autonomy imposes preferences and values of a different person, the formerly competent self (Buccafumi, p. 14). The role that patient's families, doctors, health aides, pastors, chaplains and administrators, health educators and others play is crucial. Few people have executed an advanced directive, much less appointed a healthcare power of attorney by the time they enter a hospital