“Allow natural death” versus “do not resuscitate”: three words that can change a life
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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None declared.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Physicians’ confidence in discussing do not resuscitate orders with patients and surrogates
- End of life decisions: attitudes of Finnish physicians
- The do-not-resuscitate order: associations with advance directives, physician specialty and documentation of discussion 15 years after the Patient Self-Determination Act
- Honouring patient's resuscitation wishes: a multiphased effort to improve identification and documentation
- Evaluation of do not resuscitate orders (DNR) in a Swiss community hospital
- A patient and relative centred evaluation of treatment escalation plans: a replacement for the do-not-resuscitate process
- Evaluation of end of life care in cancer patients at a teaching hospital in Japan
- Effect of do-not-resuscitate orders on patients with sepsis in the medical intensive care unit: a retrospective, observational and propensity score-matched study in a tertiary referral hospital in Taiwan
- Do Not Resuscitate orders and ethical decisions in a neonatal intensive care unit in a Muslim community
- Increasing use of DNR orders in the elderly worldwide: whose choice is it?