[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.128.52. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 6, 1991

DNR in the ORResuscitation as an Operative Risk

Author Affiliations

From the Division of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa.

From the Division of Medical Ethics and Humanities, Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa.

JAMA. 1991;266(17):2407-2412. doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470170095031
Abstract

Should do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders be routinely rescinded when terminally ill patients undergo palliative surgery? If so, patients will be forced to balance the benefits of palliative surgery against the risks of unwanted resuscitation. If physicians are required to honor intraoperative DNR orders, they may feel unacceptably restrained from correcting adverse effects for which they feel responsible. This dilemma has been overlooked by DNR policies. This article argues for the permissibility of honoring intraoperative DNR orders. The patient's right to refuse treatment outweighs physicians' concerns about professional scrutiny over intraoperative deaths. Physicians' moral concerns about hastening patient death are important but may be assuaged by (1) emphasizing patients' acceptance of operative mortality risk; (2) viewing matters as analogous to surgery on Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse lifesaving transfusion; (3) viewing the patient's intraoperative death as a double effect, that is, an unintended negative effect that is linked to the performance of a good act (palliation); and (4) distinguishing this from assisted suicide.

(JAMA. 1991;266:2407-2412)

×