This is a personal view about the recent high court decision around cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This opinion identifies that the judge failed to recognise the statutory role given to clinicians in identifying when a treatment is life sustaining. In failing to recognise the role of the clinician, the ruling in Winspear risks the likelihood of inappropriate CPR attempts.
- Legal Aspects
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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review
- Resuscitation decisions at the end of life: medical views and the juridification of practice
- Family members, ambulance clinicians and attempting CPR in the community: the ethical and legal imperative to reach collaborative consensus at speed
- Variation in local trust Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policies: a review of 48 English healthcare trusts
- Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions for older medical inpatients: a cohort study
- Raising the issue of DNAR orders in vascular surgery patients
- When and how to discuss “do not resuscitate” decisions with patients
- Discussion and documentation of future care: a before-and-after study examining the impact of an alternative approach to recording treatment decisions on advance care planning in an acute hospital
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Advance and future care planning: strategic approaches in Wales