Why Is Dnr Important

Though ethics committees have been helpful, scores of physician-patient disagreements end up in the U.S. court system with inconsistent results. The states adopted individual “statutes regulating DNR orders and their provisions vary in analysis throughout the U.S.” (Bishop, Brothers, Perry & Ahmad, 2010). One ethical dilemma that is constant in emergency rooms, the intensive care unit and terminally ill persons is a futility of treatment. In the case of CPR/DNR, New York State wanted to enact a law that describes the decisive responsibilities of the patient, and the family or surrogate, and physician. “In April 2003, the New-York Attorney General asserted that the DNR law would require a physician to obtain a consent of the patient’s health care surrogate before entering a DNR order, even when the physician

In this situation, the doctor asked the husband if he could resuscitate his wife despite her having a DNR. The nurse in the room could have interjected and said that the wife has already signed off on a DNR, and the question of resuscitation is off the table. Also, the nurse could have explained the patient's wishes to the husband and the doctor. In this case, the doctor was influenced by the husband's wants, the husband had told the doctor that he wants his wife to live.

A legal requirement of end of life care is that the wishes of the individual, including whether CPR should be attempted, as well as their wishes how they are cared for after death are properly documented. This means that their rights and wishes even after death are respected.

A legal requirement of end of life care is that the wishes of the individual, including whether CPR should be attempted, as well as their wishes how they are cared for after death are

Advance Directives by the patient designates no feeding tubes, artificial ventilation, or CPR. Concerns regarding alteration of mental status consequential to his illness provoke the physician to seek consultation from the designated Power of Attorney. Nursing responsibilities compel the nurse to consider if the proposed actions of Dr. G violate the patient’s rights of self determination and confidentiality and prompt the nurse to advocate for the patient’s desires regarding medical treatment. Health care providers have a responsibility to honor the patient’s autonomy and provide quality medical care (Badger, 2009 p122). Providing artificial nutrition and ventilation transgresses the patient’s directives and is unethical. The physician appears to be asserting a paternalistic approach in deciding what is best for this patient. Should the interventions be temporary and provide resolution of the condition, the physician can defend his actions as being healing and beneficial. However, there is a chance that the interventions may be permanent and futile; avoiding passive euthanasia and terminal dehydration, serving only to prolonging the illness. Violating the patient’s directives of care by performing invasive procedures can lead to legal incriminations of assault and battery.

In reality CPR may be inappropriate and the development of advance care plans, including consideration of a DNACPR order, are encouraged for people with end of life care needs.

Very often, deliberate decisions are made which results in the end of a life. For example, a person could be kept on life support, but instead, a family member or other significant person might choose to switch off the life support machine resulting in the official death of a patient. There is also the case that resuscitation of a patient may eventually prove to be trivial and a doctor might suggest just making the patient as comfortable as possible until their eventual passing. In the above situations, a medical professional’s decisions would not be questioned or doubted. It is conventional practice (Warnock and MacDonald 2008).

Second, the patient needs to have refractory symptoms (Knight & Espinosa, 2010). A third requirement is a “Do Not Resuscitate” order (Knight & Espinosa, 2010). Lastly, the patient must be expected to die within the next few hours or days (Knight & Espinosa, 2010). Informed consent must be obtained either by the patient, or if the patient is unable to do so, a legal surrogate before palliative sedation is initiated (Knight & Espinosa, 2010). Knight and Espinosa recommended receiving a second opinion as to whether the patient is an appropriate candidate for palliative sedation.

This paper concerns the ethical basis for advance directives, or “Living Wills”; the value of these advance directives to the patients, their families; and the authorities that these advance directives give the above mentioned interested parties.

It is very important that each individual, if possible has a say in his or her own dying and death. Facing death is hard for everyone and there are specific issues to be talked about in advance. A living will or a Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) is extremely useful. The POLST is designed for people with serious or life-threatening illnesses. “This is a standardized form that describes a patient’s wishes and is signed by his or her physician, providing both summary of an individual’s advance directive decision and the physician’s order. It can be used to inform emergency personnel about a patient’s wishes for life sustaining procedures, such as CPR. “

Advance directive structures vary from state to state, but all include two distinctive parts: health care treatment directive and the durable power of attorney (Later & King, 2007). The health care treatment directive is defined as a listing of procedures that the patient may choose to be completed in the preservation of their life or to not be done (Halpern et. all, 2013) Areas that are covered within this section include cardiopulmonary recessitation (CPR), and intubation CPR is used within the health care system as an intervention that is used when the patient’s heart stops. Labeled as do not

The current health situation should be explained in a non-technical way so the patient (if possible) family, and or valid surrogate can understand every aspect. The physician should also help them understand when there is no hope for recovery. Most often the organs are no longer functioning, or there is little to no brain activity; at this point suffering potentially outweighs the probability of recovery. Medical teams most often realize that the focus should be on comfort, rather than extending a dying life. This decision comes with a great deal of uncertainty, and will always be hard, no matter what age of the patient, or the circumstances. Kathryn Kosh, MD explains that, “Ready access to advanced modern technology has changed death from an event to a process… Defying death requires payment [in the form of] pain and discomfort or in an unacceptable decline in the quality of life.” Often times physicians will not prescribe treatment in the first place knowing that this option will not benefit the patient, prolong suffering; and will likely end in termination anyway. Therefore, allowing the nature of the illness or injury to take its own course of action. Another point of interest regarding this topic is that medical teams realize in most cases, that providing an ethical and dignified death can be just as rewarding as administering aggressive measures to save a

I believe that the immediate family members should be given the option to be present during resuscitation of the patient. I believe that it is the immediate family members’ right to be present if they

Ethical dilemma may also arise in cases where a patient may feel their right to DNR should be carried out when giving direct order. The DNR process, however, is required to be documented by a physician. Andrew Putnam (2003) presents a case where an eighty-eight year old patient’s code status was DNR; “However, the patient has never signed formal advance directive statement or assigned durable power of attorney for her health care to anyone.” (Putnam, 2003, 2025) Ethics can be simply stated as doing the right thing (Roberts, 2002, 242); but in this case ethics is questioned because the physician was faced with the decision to carry out the wishes of the patient or to make a decision based on legality. In this case, it may have been morally right to carry out the wishes of the patient who wanted DNR orders carried out, but it may have been the right choice to do the legal thing and not carried out due to lack of signed documentation.

A Do not resuscitate (DNR) order is a legal document written by a licensed physician, which is developed in consultation with the patient, surrogate decision maker, and attending physician. This document indicates whether the patient will receive resuscitative care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or advanced medical directives, in the setting of cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. A DNR can also be referred as a no code when identifying a patient’s resuscitation status. If a patient has an existing DNR it allows the resuscitation team, taking care of the patient, to either withhold or stop any resuscitation measures, and therefore respect the patient’s wishes. Historically, DNR orders did not become active in the care of patients until 1974, when it was identified that patients who received CPR, and survived, had significant morbidities (Braddock & Derbenwick-Clark, 2014). Braddock and Derbenwick-Clark further noted, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended that physicians, in consultation with the patient, family, and or surrogate, place on the patients chart when CPR was not indicated. This documentation is now what we refer to as the DNR order and has become the standard to allow autonomous respect for patients, and their families, to make informed medical decisions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the legal aspects, ethical issues, and the application surrounding the DNR order.