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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As