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

Howard Brody, MD, PhD; Tom Tomlinson, PhD
Michigan State University East Lansing

JAMA. 1989;261(11):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.—

Although our article¹ was cited by all four authors who discussed do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in a recent issue of JAMA,^2-5 a critical distinction was missed that might have clarified the apparent disagreement between Murphy² and Youngner.³ The former called for unilateral DNR decisions by the physician when resuscitation is demonstrably futile; the latter accused the former of unacceptable paternalism in excluding patient or family participation in DNR discussions.

The distinction missing from this debate is that between the physician's decision whether resuscitation should be offered and the decision whether resuscitation should be discussed. As we explained in our article, when resuscitation is futile and offers nothing of benefit to the patient, it need not be offered as a matter of choice since it serves neither the patient's interests nor his rights. In this case, the decision against resuscitation is a matter of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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