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

Leslie J. Blackhall, MD
University Hospital Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1989;261(11):1580-1581.

	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. —

The articles by Taffet et al¹ and Murphy² in the October 14 issue of JAMA are important contributions to our understanding of the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and donot-resuscitate orders; however, they raise several important issues that need clarification before we can decide under what circumstances, if any, do-not-resuscitate orders can be issued on purely medical grounds. The first is, as Youngner³ suggests, the definition of futility with respect to CPR. The second is whether the decision to withhold CPR on the basis of futility frees us of the responsibility of talking to our patients and their families about their care.

I disagree with Youngner's assertion³ that it is impossible to define futility with respect to CPR. In a case like metastatic cancer, where study after study has shown no survival until discharge, the designation "futile" is realistic.^1,4 Although some patients . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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