Nurse Ethics and DNR Advance Directives: Roles and Values
This paper examines the ethical, moral, and legal dimensions of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) advance directives in nursing practice. Using a patient scenario involving a conscious but deteriorating patient who has expressed a DNR wish without yet signing the formal order, the paper describes the nurse's advocacy responsibilities, outlines potential moral dilemmas and resolution strategies, and analyzes the impact of DNR decisions on key stakeholders — the patient, nurse, and family. The paper further applies relevant provisions of the American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics, emphasizes the importance of patient autonomy in end-of-life decision-making, and identifies legal conflicts that may arise among the patient, family, nurse, and healthcare organization, along with nursing actions to prevent them.
- Evidence-Based Practice and DNR Advance Directives: Nursing's role in compassionate end-of-life care
- The Nurse's Moral Responsibility and Patient Advocacy: Nurse's duty to advocate for patient's DNR wishes
- Moral Dilemmas and Resolution Strategies: Competing outcomes and strategies to resolve DNR conflict
- Impact of the DNR on Key Stakeholders: How DNR affects patient, nurse, and family
- ANA Code of Ethics, Patient Autonomy, and Professional Practice: ANA provisions and importance of patient autonomy
- Legal Implications and Nursing Actions: Legal conflicts and nursing actions to prevent them
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically addresses each dimension of the DNR issue — evidence-based practice, moral responsibility, stakeholder impact, professional ethics, and legal implications — providing a well-rounded analysis without straying outside the scenario.
- Stakeholder-specific analysis (patient, nurse, family) adds depth by showing how a single clinical decision ripples outward, giving the argument practical relevance beyond abstract ethics.
- The paper balances competing interests honestly, acknowledging that both courses of action (supporting or not supporting the DNR) lead to the same outcome but with distinct moral consequences.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning — taking a real clinical scenario and systematically evaluating it through multiple ethical lenses (autonomy, non-maleficence, advocacy, professional codes). Rather than arguing from a single perspective, it maps the tension between patient wishes, family objections, and institutional/legal constraints before proposing resolution strategies, which is characteristic of strong healthcare ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a structured question-and-answer format typical of nursing program assessments. It opens with a brief literature-grounded overview of DNR practice, moves into moral responsibility and dilemma analysis, then addresses stakeholder impacts, ANA Code of Ethics application, and concludes with legal conflict identification and nursing action recommendations. Citations from peer-reviewed sources and ANA policy documents support each section.
Evidence-Based Practice and DNR Advance Directives
Nursing care is purposed to meet the comprehensive needs of both patients and their families throughout the healthcare process. This is especially fundamental in caring for patients and their loved ones at the end of life. Nurses are advocates for the rendering of honourable and compassionate care. They actively take part in examining and ascertaining the responsible and suitable use of interventions so as to decrease any instances of unwarranted treatment and patient suffering (American Nursing Association, 2012).
The Nurse's Moral Responsibility and Patient Advocacy
In the case of Mr. Miles, the nurse has a moral responsibility to provide advocacy and protection of both the patient and his desires, which encompasses his request to be designated a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) patient. Despite the fact that there may be apprehension amongst other healthcare professionals and also amongst Mr. Miles's family concerning his decision, a patient who is knowledgeable and mentally capable has the freedom and right to decline treatment and lifesaving procedures.
The primary responsibility of the nurse in this regard is to make certain that Mr. Miles is fully aware and comprehensively understands his diagnosis, the course of his medical condition, and the treatment options available. After ascertaining that the patient is fully competent, the nurse ought to conduct an exhaustive discussion of the prospective risks and benefits associated with each course of treatment in order to confirm his understanding. The nurse is then responsible for conveying this information to other healthcare professionals and colleagues, including the patient's attending physician.
Moral Dilemmas and Resolution Strategies
In this scenario, the nurse faces a significant moral dilemma. On one hand, if the nurse decides to support Mr. Miles's DNR decision, he or she may be dismissed from the patient's care team by the family. The nurse may also experience professional shunning from colleagues within the healthcare facility. In such a situation, Mr. Miles would continue as a full-code patient, with the medical team providing emergent procedures in an endeavour to resuscitate him against his wishes; he would continue to worsen, experience a cardiopulmonary arrest, and ultimately pass away.
On the other hand, if the nurse succeeds in persuading the attending physician to establish the DNR order — delineating patient treatment objectives and comfort measures — then Mr. Miles would be designated as a DNR as he desires. He would still continue to worsen, experience a cardiopulmonary arrest, and pass away. It is important to note that although the final outcome is the patient's death in both scenarios, the two routes carry completely different moral consequences.
However, there are resolution strategies available. One key solution is to grant Mr. Miles the opportunity to complete his own advance directive before his medical condition deteriorates further. Another strategy involves arranging an urgent family meeting while Mr. Miles is septic but prior to becoming medically unresponsive. This approach is significant because it provides an opportunity for the patient to express and communicate his DNR wishes directly to both his family members and the assigned healthcare team. It also grants the nurse an ideal opportunity to advocate for the patient's communicated desires, while giving family members adequate time to absorb information about Mr. Miles's medical prognosis without the pressure of imminent resuscitative procedures. Palliative and end-of-life care frameworks support this kind of proactive, family-inclusive communication as a standard of compassionate practice.
References
Adams, J. A., Bailey, D. E., Anderson, R. A., & Docherty, S. L. (2011). Nursing roles and strategies in end-of-life decision making in acute care: A systematic review of the literature. Nursing Research and Practice, 2011.
American Nursing Association. (2012). Nursing care and do not resuscitate (DNR) and allow natural death (AND) decisions. Nursing World.
Griffith, R., & Tengnah, C. (2017). Law and professional issues in nursing. Learning Matters.
Sa'id, A. N., & Mrayyan, M. (2016). Do not resuscitate: An argumentative essay. Journal of Palliative Care Medicine, 6, 254. doi:10.4172/2165-7386.1000254.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.