[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.247.205. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 6, 1991

DNR in the Operating RoomNot Really a Paradox

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, the Clinical Ethics Program, and the Center for Biomedical Ethics (Dr Youngner), the Department of Anesthesiology (Dr Cascorbi), and the Department of Surgery (Dr Shuck), University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

From the Department of Medicine, the Clinical Ethics Program, and the Center for Biomedical Ethics (Dr Youngner), the Department of Anesthesiology (Dr Cascorbi), and the Department of Surgery (Dr Shuck), University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

JAMA. 1991;266(17):2433-2434. doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470170121036
Abstract

After nearly two decades of experience, the proper circumstances and procedures for implementing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions have become a standard of care throughout our nation. This standard recognizes not only that cardiopulmonary resuscitation sometimes offers no benefit and may actually harm patients, but also that competent patients have a right to refuse it. Moreover, physicians have an obligation to discuss resuscitation status with patients and their families and to document those discussions and the resulting treatment plan in the medical record. In this issue of JAMA, Walker1 identifies one important area of clinical practice where the application of DNR policy remains problematic— the operating room.

At first glance, sending a DNR patient to the operating room may seem paradoxical. Yet, as Walker points out, terminal patients sometimes require palliative surgery. Furthermore, DNR patients need not be terminal; many of them live to leave the hospital

×