“Allow natural death” versus “do not resuscitate”: three words that can change a life
Authors:
- 21 December 2007
- journal article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 34 (1) , 2-6
Abstract
Physician-written “do not resuscitate” DNR orders elicit negative reactions from stakeholders that may decrease appropriate end-of-life care. The semantic significance of the phrase has led to a proposed replacement of DNR with “allow natural death” (AND). Prior to this investigation, no scientific papers address the impact of such a change. Our results support this proposition due to increased likelihood of endorsement with the term AND.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Treatment preferences and advance care planning at end of life: The role of ethnicity and spiritual coping in cancer patientsAnnals of Behavioral Medicine, 2005
- End of life decisions: attitudes of Finnish physiciansJournal of Medical Ethics, 2004
- Scale of levels of care versus DNR ordersJournal of Medical Ethics, 2004
- Finnish Nurses’ Views on End-of-Life Discussions and a Comparison with Physicians’ ViewsNursing Ethics, 2004
- ERP indices of emotionality and semantic cohesiveness during recognition judgmentsPsychophysiology, 2003
- Increasing use of DNR orders in the elderly worldwide: whose choice is it?Journal of Medical Ethics, 2002
- AND versus DNRAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®, 2001
- End-of-Life Care Directives Among African Americans: Lessons Learned-A Need for Community-Centered Discussion and EducationJournal of Community Health Nursing, 2000
- BRIEF REPORT: Emotional Value of Information and its Relevance in the Interpretation of Homophones in AnxietyCognition and Emotion, 1996
- Individual differences in positive and negative interpretive biasesPersonality and Individual Differences, 1993