The Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation-Not-Indicated Order: Futility Revisited
- David B. Waisel, MD; and
- Robert D. Truog, MD
- From Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Requests for Reprints: David B. Waisel, MD, Department of Anesthesiology/PSA, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, TX 78236-5300. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense or other departments of the U. S. Government. Acknowledgment: The authors thank Dr. Stuart J. Youngner for stimulating our interest in cardiopulmonary resuscitation-not-indicated policies.
Abstract
This paper reviews the advent of unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders. Unilateral do-not-resuscitate policies presume that cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a medical therapy and that physicians have no obligation to undertake a medical therapy that does not offer achievable and appropriate goals. Four do-not-resuscitate policies from U.S. hospitals and some of the significant published proposals are reviewed. We conclude that anything other than a physiologic definition of futility is indefensible because of imposed value judgments, imprecise definitions of quantitative and qualitative futility, inexact data, lack of certitude of economic benefit, and the role of autonomy for the patient and physician.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
Most Read
