Skip to main content

Do Not Resuscitate and patient care; who decides?

A family's legal action to force the government to review and adopt a clear policy requiring hospitals to consult patients and relatives before making "do not resuscitate" notices has been denied by a high court judge. Nevertheless, the case highlights inconsistency in approach to these orders between healthcare trusts and a lack of guidance in the training of doctors.

End of life decisions are never easy. Advances in medicine enable clinicians to resuscitate and keep patients alive in intensive care. But it can often bring two principles into conflict: the duty to preserve life and the duty to do no harm.  One might assume it is always better for a clinician to treat a patient; but to treat badly is not in the interest of the patient or of their close relatives. Sometimes it is better to withdraw treatment that seeks to combat illness and then to move to palliative care; to reduce pain, minimise suffering, and allow the patient to die peacefully and in dignity. When treatment becomes futile, then a clinician has a duty to acknowledge this and inform the patient and/or their relatives, and then to discuss what can be done.

What can be done depends on circumstances and the wishes of the patient. At any time, but particularly at this time, patients bring with them their 'expertise'; they bring their needs, their wishes, their relationships and obligations to their families. Each patient is in this regard unique.  And thus the patients are best placed to consider what they wish  with regard to what might be done. There is little in the training of a clinician that enables them to second guess the wishes of a patient. And this is why doctors should be wary of making assumptions about the best interest of their patient. 

This is why decisions about possible resuscitation should be made wherever possible with understanding and consent of the patient or their nearest relatives. Care should be taken about adding Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) to a patient's notes without proper consideration. This should only be done with clear understanding and consent. Where necessary this should be reviewed and updated. The patients condition and circumstances may change during treatment. The patient may also change their  mind about resuscitation in the light of these changed circumstances.  Thus, DNR should never be allowed to fester in the notes. But what this needs is a clear procedure. A clear protocol should be adopted to ensure DNR is reviewed and should never be assumed. 

This does not and cannot mean that the final decision on resuscitation will always rest with relatives. Where it would not only be futile but also harmful to resuscitate then that is a decision that can only be based on clinical judgement. But, whatever conflict DNR may bring for the clinician it is never as acute as that which it can present to the patient and their relatives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't