rss
J Med Ethics 2008;34:2-6 doi:10.1136/jme.2006.018317
  • Clinical ethics

“Allow natural death” versus “do not resuscitate”: three words that can change a life

  1. S S Venneman1,
  2. P Narnor-Harris2,
  3. M Perish3,
  4. M Hamilton4
  1. 1
    University of Houston-Victoria, Departments of Psychology & Biology, Victoria, Texas, USA
  2. 2
    DeTar Hospital, Victoria, Texas, USA
  3. 3
    University of Houston-Victoria, Victoria, Texas, USA
  4. 4
    Victoria College, Victoria, Texas, USA
  1. Dr S Venneman, Departments of Psychology & Biology, University of Houston-Victoria, 3007 N. Ben Wilson, Victoria, Texas 77901, USA; vennemans{at}uhv.edu
  • Received 26 June 2006
  • Revised 30 November 2006
  • Accepted 6 December 2006

Abstract

Physician-written “do not resuscitate” DNR orders elicit negative reactions from stakeholders that may decrease appropriate end-of-life care. The semantic significance of the phrase has led to a proposed replacement of DNR with “allow natural death” (AND). Prior to this investigation, no scientific papers address the impact of such a change. Our results support this proposition due to increased likelihood of endorsement with the term AND.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.