A Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNR), is not the same thing as a “do not treat” request, although there is sometimes confusion in that regard. It simply means that if the patient has a cardiac arrest, the medical team (or nursing home personnel) are instructed to not try and revive the patient. It is not the same thing as the patient stating, “I want to die now,” or “don’t do anything to keep me alive.” It says, don’t give me CPR.
That is why an article in Medical News Today has me concerned. It suggests that patients with a DNR be dissuaded from receiving (or denied?) life-extending surgery based on poorer outcomes for such people than those without DNRs receiving the same procedures. From, “Should DNR Rules Apply to Life Prolonging Surgeries, Procedures?”
Could it be that if a patient has already decided to not continue their life by turning down resuscitation legally, healthcare professionals should save time and money by not recommending or performing surgeries to prolong life? A new study shows that about 70% of Americans die when they have do not resuscitate (DNR) orders in place, after having potentially saving surgeries or not…
Researchers contrasted the surgical outcomes for some 4,000 DNR patients with age-matched patients who’d had the same procedure done but didn’t have a DNR order. Overall, nearly 25% of DNR patients died in the month following their surgery, about three times as many as in the comparison group. That difference remained even after taking into account that DNR patients are usually sicker to begin with, Roman said, although the reasons aren’t clear.
So? That means 75% didn’t die in that time, doesn’t it?
For those who would follow this very bad suggestion, consider this: I can’t think of anything that would more dissuade people from signing DNRs than if they knew that by doing so, their doctors and/or bioethicists would henceforth consider other medical efforts to extend their lives not worth “the time and money.” Good grief.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
