Should patient consent be required to write a do not resuscitate order?
Open Access
- 1 December 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 29 (6) , 359-363
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.6.359
Abstract
Consent ought to be required to withhold treatment that is in a patient’s best interests to receive. Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. If patient input results in that patient dissenting to the DNR order then individual physicians are not justified in overriding such dissent. To do so would give unjustifiable primacy to the values of the individual physician. Therefore patient consent is effectively required to write a DNR order. Patient dissent to a DNR order should trigger a fair process mechanism to resolve the dispute.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Should There be a Choice for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation When Death is Expected? Revisiting an Old Idea Whose Time is Yet to ComeJournal of Palliative Medicine, 2002
- Bristol inquiryPublished by BMJ ,2001
- Assessing competence to refuse medical treatmentThe Medical Journal of Australia, 2001
- Do not resuscitate decisions: flogging dead horses or a dignified death?BMJ, 2000
- Do-not-resuscitate orders in the face of patient and family oppositionCritical Care Medicine, 1999
- Making decisions about medical treatment for mentally incapable adults in the UKThe Lancet, 1997
- Must consent always be obtained for a do-not-resuscitate order?Archives of internal medicine (1960), 1996
- Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Television — Miracles and MisinformationNew England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical ImplicationsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1990
- Do-not-resuscitate orders. Time for reappraisal in long-term-care institutionsJAMA, 1988