This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Barbara A. Elliott, PhD; Thomas W. Day, MD
Duluth Family Practice Center Duluth, Minn

JAMA. 1986;255(22):3114.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

An order stating that a patient should not be resuscitated ("do not resuscitate," or DNR) means that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, life-restoring efforts will be withheld. Confusion exists concerning inferences from such an order. A recent issue of JAMA contains a report regarding DNR orders¹ similar to an article published a year earlier.² Although the format of the investigation is similar, some of the results and many of the conclusions differ markedly. Some of the differences are disturbing.

Youngner et al² emphasize that the "DNR order does not mean that patients will be medically or emotionally abandoned." By contrast, Zimmerman et al¹ feel that "avoiding treatment that would not positively affect the patient's condition" is ethically implied by the DNR order. Both cite findings from their studies supporting these radically different ethical interpretations of the DNR order.

As stated by . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?