BACKGROUND: In 1976, the first hospital policies on orders not to resuscitate were published in the medical literature. Since that time, the concept has continued to evolve and evoke much debate. Indeed, few initials in medicine today evoke as much symbolism or controversy as the Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. OBJECTIVE: To review the development, implementation, and present standing of the DNR order. DESIGN: Review article. MAIN RESULTS: The DNR order concept brought an open decision-making framework to the resuscitation decision and did much to put appropriate restraint on the universal application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for the dying patient. Yet, even today, many of the early concerns remain. CONCLUSIONS: After 25 yrs of DNR orders, it remains reasonable to presume consent and attempt resuscitation for people who suffer an unexpected cardiopulmonary arrest or for whom resuscitation may have physiologic effect and for whom no information is available at the time as to their wishes (or those of their surrogate). However, it is not reasonable to continue to rely on such a presumption without promptly and actively seeking to clarify the patient's (or surrogate's) wishes. The DNR order, then, remains an inducement to seek the informed patient's directive.
BACKGROUND: In 1976, the first hospital policies on orders not to resuscitate were published in the medical literature. Since that time, the concept has continued to evolve and evoke much debate. Indeed, few initials in medicine today evoke as much symbolism or controversy as the Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. OBJECTIVE: To review the development, implementation, and present standing of the DNR order. DESIGN: Review article. MAIN RESULTS: The DNR order concept brought an open decision-making framework to the resuscitation decision and did much to put appropriate restraint on the universal application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for the dying patient. Yet, even today, many of the early concerns remain. CONCLUSIONS: After 25 yrs of DNR orders, it remains reasonable to presume consent and attempt resuscitation for people who suffer an unexpected cardiopulmonary arrest or for whom resuscitation may have physiologic effect and for whom no information is available at the time as to their wishes (or those of their surrogate). However, it is not reasonable to continue to rely on such a presumption without promptly and actively seeking to clarify the patient's (or surrogate's) wishes. The DNR order, then, remains an inducement to seek the informed patient's directive.
Authors: Eytan Szmuilowicz; Kathy J Neely; Rashmi K Sharma; Elaine R Cohen; William C McGaghie; Diane B Wayne Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Daniel P Sulmasy; Johanna R Sood; Kenneth Texiera; Ruth L McAuley; Jennifer McGugins; Wayne A Ury Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: C O Sham; Y W Cheng; K W Ho; P H Lai; L W Lo; H L Wan; C Y Wong; Y N Yeung; S H Yuen; A Y Wong; A Y C Wong Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.903