DNR Orders and Patient Autonomy: Alice's Frail Mother Case
This case study analysis examines the ethical and administrative failures surrounding a do not resuscitate (DNR) order in the case of "Alice's Frail Mother." The paper explores how Martha's clearly stated end-of-life wishes were disregarded following a transfer from Oak Grove Nursing Home to Community Hospital, tracing the breakdown to poor inter-facility communication and institutional self-interest. Drawing on principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, the analysis evaluates the relative culpability of each institution and argues that long-term care facilities bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that advance directives are properly communicated and honored across care transitions.
- Introduction to DNR Orders and Advance Directives: Defines DNR orders and introduces Martha's case
- Why DNR Orders Are Ignored: Systemic and Administrative Factors: Explores institutional and physician reasons for DNR non-compliance
- Communication Failures Across Care Settings: Identifies breakdowns between nursing home and hospital
- Institutional Responsibility and Ethical Principles: Assigns relative culpability to each care facility
- Conclusion: Calls for stronger patient-advocacy practices in long-term care
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds the case analysis in established bioethical principles — autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence — giving the argument a clear theoretical framework throughout.
- Balances criticism fairly by acknowledging the Community Hospital staff's relative lack of culpability before assigning primary blame to the nursing home, which demonstrates nuanced ethical reasoning.
- Uses peer-reviewed sources alongside a University of Washington bioethics reference to support claims about systemic DNR non-compliance, adding scholarly credibility to a case-based argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: it takes concrete real-world facts from a case and systematically maps them onto recognized moral principles. Rather than simply describing what went wrong, the author explains why it was wrong by citing principles (non-maleficence, autonomy) and connecting them to observable institutional behaviors such as mandatory resuscitation policies driven by malpractice concerns.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining key terms (DNR, advance directive) and establishing the factual record of the case. It then broadens to systemic literature on DNR non-compliance before narrowing back to the specific communication failures between Oak Grove and Community Hospital. The penultimate section distributes ethical responsibility between the two institutions, and the paper closes with a forward-looking recommendation directed at long-term care facilities.
Introduction to DNR Orders and Advance Directives
A do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a type of advance directive — essentially a legal agreement between a patient and a healthcare provider that details the patient's wishes in the event of incapacitation. A DNR means that the patient does not want to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or any similar procedure in the event of cardiac arrest or a comparable medical emergency. In the case of "Alice's Frail Mother," Martha clearly stated with full lucidity that "she did not want to have surgery, CPR, antibiotics, and so on." Martha's daughter signed a DNR agreement but admits that she never had a clear discussion with the hospital or nursing home staff.
The signed DNR agreement should have been sufficient to prevent Martha's "worst nightmares" from coming true, as her daughter described them in the case study. There are several reasons why the hospital staff might have overlooked or even ignored the DNR and other advance directives. One is administrative in nature: Oak Grove Nursing Home deferred Martha's case to Community Hospital, at which point the hospital staff assumed control of the patient. The nursing home is certainly at fault for not communicating Martha's wishes and the legally binding DNR agreement. Likewise, the nursing home demonstrated clearly unethical behavior in not listening to the patient or the patient's family.
Why DNR Orders Are Ignored: Systemic and Administrative Factors
Respecting Martha's rights is fundamentally a matter of patient autonomy (Braddock & Clark, 1998). However, DNR orders have a long history of being ignored because of what researchers have called "systemic factors that affect physician behavior" (Yuen, Reid & Fetters, 2011, p. 791). These factors are not limited to physician perceptions of DNR efficacy; they also extend to hospital administrative policies. For example, "in some hospitals, it is mandatory to elicit the resuscitation preferences of all patients who are admitted," regardless of prior patient directives (Yuen, Reid & Fetters, 2011, p. 791). Hospitals do this partly to avoid malpractice suits, which similarly motivates individual physicians to act (Yuen, Reid & Fetters, 2011).
Even when a hospital claims that overriding a DNR order is an expression of the ethical principle of beneficence, the institution is often acting out of self-interest. Yet clearly, disobeying patient requests can also result in negative publicity — and potentially a malpractice suit — if CPR or other interventions cause harm to the patient. Institutions like Community Hospital should carefully consider how ignoring a DNR violates the ethical principle of non-maleficence (Ober & Cambron, 2005).
Communication Failures Across Care Settings
Communication is the central issue in Martha's case. Oak Grove Nursing Home failed to communicate properly with Martha's daughter, with Martha herself, or with Community Hospital. The staff at Community Hospital also failed to reach out to Martha's daughter or to Oak Grove Nursing Home. A further communication problem is that the hospital may have had unclear internal policies regarding DNR orders, or may not have adequately trained staff in how to interpret DNR orders and other advance directives.
Patients like Martha, who expressly refused resuscitation, have fairly unambiguous advance directives that should have been documented in the patient's electronic health records or charts and communicated at the point of transfer. The failure to ensure this documentation traveled with Martha across care settings is a fundamental breakdown in continuity of care.
Conclusion
Long-term care facilities bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that patient wishes are heard and respected, for both legal and ethical reasons. In Martha's case, the failure of Oak Grove Nursing Home to communicate her clearly expressed advance directives to Community Hospital led directly to violations of her autonomy and the principle of non-maleficence. Stronger inter-facility communication protocols and thorough staff education on advance directives are essential to preventing such failures in the future.
References
Braddock, C. H. & Clark, J. D. (1998). Do not resuscitate. Ethics in Medicine. https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/dnr.html
Ober, V. & Cambron, C. L. (2005). Legal implications and ethical considerations of "do not resuscitate." RiskRx, 2(3). http://flbog.sip.ufl.edu/risk-rx-article/legal-implications-and-ethical-considerations-of-do-not-resuscitate/
Yuen, J. K., Reid, M. C. & Fetters, M. D. (2011). Hospital do-not-resuscitate orders. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(7), 791–797.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.