The article “Patients with do-not-resuscitate orders receive less care” was published in Spectrum News on December 6, 2021. The article highlights the results of a study of the relationship between Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) labeling in geriatric patients and the actual care they receive. Griffey points out that patients receive much less care from nurses and physicians because the staff does not see the point (2021). The article makes the case that surgical patients are dying before they would potentially need resuscitation. Moreover, data highlighted that the statistics have halved: this means that if 2 out of 10 people used to die, it is now 4. According to the author of the article and the authors of the studies cited, this is due to the way staff perceives the DNR (Griffey, 2021). In addition, DNR orders are potentially detrimental to overall future treatment tactics and hospitalization outcomes.
The article highlights the problem of clinical interventions for patients with DNR and notes a pattern in the decreasing frequency of laboratory diagnosis. The author cites current legislation in Texas, which may differ from the staff’s ethical perceptions of the need for DNR. Griffey points to the legal aspects of DNR, establishing that a DNR order reversal is a relatively straightforward action requiring verbal confirmation (2021). The author concludes that this policy is drastically different from adopting a DNR order, which requires many legal and physician complexities. According to Griffey, the DNR’s legal aspects may be the most complex and subtle for medical personnel (2021). The article suggests looking at the DNR order as a mortality factor that turns out to be critical for surgical patients. The evidence cited leads one to believe that the DNR is probably still an unsolved dilemma, ethically and legally.
Reference
Griffey, E. (2021). Patients with do-not-resuscitate orders receive less care. Spectrum News. Web.