Ethics of DNR Orders and End-of-Life Care Decisions
This paper examines the ethical dilemmas surrounding do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and end-of-life care decisions. Using a real clinical case as a touchstone, the paper identifies key moral tensions between prolonging life mechanically and honoring patient dignity. It applies two bioethical principles — nonmaleficence and autonomy — alongside deontological (duty-based) ethics to analyze the responsibilities of health care providers and families. The paper also reflects on personal moral values regarding assisted suicide versus DNR acceptance, and situates those values within broader societal uncertainty about end-of-life discourse. Ultimately, the paper advocates for clearer advance directives and compassionate communication between care providers and families.
- Introduction: Frames DNR dilemma and ethical framework
- What Is the Ethical Dilemma?: Defines dilemma through clinical case evidence
- Main Moral Issues: Explores deontological tensions in terminal care
- Two Bioethical Principles: Nonmaleficence and Autonomy: Applies nonmaleficence and autonomy to DNR decisions
- Personal Moral Values and Their Societal Context: Reflects on personal ethics versus societal norms
- Conclusion: Advocates clear communication and advance directives
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract ethical principles in a concrete clinical case (Mary and her father CJ), making bioethical concepts immediately relatable and applied rather than purely theoretical.
- It clearly identifies and names its ethical framework (deontology) and two bioethical principles (nonmaleficence and autonomy) early, then consistently applies them throughout the analysis.
- The inclusion of a personal moral values section adds a reflective dimension that connects individual belief to social context, demonstrating awareness of the gap between personal ethics and societal norms.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of applied ethics analysis: it moves from identifying a dilemma, to naming the relevant ethical framework, to applying two specific principles, and finally to situating personal values within a social context. This layered structure — dilemma → theory → principles → personal reflection → societal comparison — is a strong model for undergraduate bioethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that frames the DNR dilemma and signals its theoretical lens. The second section defines the ethical dilemma with case evidence and literature support. The third addresses the main moral tensions from a deontological standpoint. The fourth section splits into two subsections treating nonmaleficence and autonomy separately. The fifth section shifts to first-person reflection and connects personal values to societal attitudes. The conclusion synthesizes the argument and offers a practical recommendation about communication and advance directives.
Introduction
When a family has to decide how much is too much, as Plakovic (2016) puts it during end-of-life care, a clear ethical dilemma emerges for both family members and care providers. That dilemma is related to the question of how to approach end-of-life treatment. For instance, some individuals have strict preferences regarding whether or not they want to be resuscitated or kept alive by a machine. Others have left no instructions for care providers and family members to follow. The ethical dilemma is further complicated by the fact that care providers take an oath to care for all life — but at the end of life, where is the line between postponing the inevitable inhumanely and providing the most humane care possible? That blurred line is a difficult one to walk.
The two major points this paper addresses in relation to end-of-life care and the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) clause concern the principles of nonmaleficence and autonomy. The ethical theory discussed in relation to this issue is deontology, also known as duty ethics.
References
Bronzino, J. D., & Peterson, D. R. (2016). Beneficence, nonmaleficence, and medical technology. In Tissue Engineering and Artificial Organs (pp. 1259–1266). CRC Press.
Garrido, M. M., Balboni, T. A., Maciejewski, P. K., Bao, Y., & Prigerson, H. G. (2015). Quality of life and cost of care at the end of life: The role of advance directives. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 49(5), 828–835.
Karnik, S., & Kanekar, A. (2016). Ethical issues surrounding end-of-life care: A narrative review. In Healthcare (Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 24). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Marijic, P., Buss, A., & Strupeit, S. (2017). Autonomy and social participation of nursing home residents: Nurses' perspectives. Innovation in Aging, 1(Suppl 1), 886.
Plakovic, K. (2016). Burdens versus benefits: When family has to decide how much is too much. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing, 18(5), 382–387.
Sen, A. (1983). Evaluator relativity and consequential evaluation. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 113–132.
Weissman, D. E. (1999). Do not resuscitate orders: A call for reform. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 2(2), 149–152.
Yuen, J. K., Reid, M. C., & Fetters, M. D. (2011). Hospital do-not-resuscitate orders: Why they have failed and how to fix them. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(7), 791–797.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.