rss
J Med Ethics 2008;34:887-888 doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024570
  • Research ethics

“Allow natural death” is not equivalent to “do not resuscitate”: a response

  1. Y-Y Chen,
  2. S J Youngner
  1. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  1. Dr Yen-Yuan Chen, Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA; yxc96{at}case.edu
  • Received 27 January 2008
  • Accepted 7 February 2008

Abstract

Venneman and colleagues argue that “do not resuscitate” (DNR) is problematic and should be replaced by “allow natural death” (AND). Their argument is flawed. First, while end-of-life discussions should be as positive as possible, they cannot and should not sidestep painful but necessary confrontations with morality. Second, while DNR can indeed be nonspecific and confusing, AND merely replaces one problematic term with another. Finally, the study’s results are not generalisable to the populations of physicians and working nurses and certainly do not support the authors’ claim that there is a movement to replace DNR with 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.