Allow natural death

Last updated

Allow Natural Death (AND) is a medical term defining the use of life-extending measures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). These orders emphasize patient comfort and pain management instead of life extension. [1] Currently, American medical communities utilize "do not resuscitate," (DNR) orders to define patients' medical wishes. Those who propose to replace DNR with AND posit that DNR orders are ambiguous and require complex understanding between several parties, while AND orders are clearer. [1] [2] Proponents of replacing DNR with AND believe that AND terminology is more ethically conscientious DNR terminology. [1] Research has been conducted regarding participant preference for AND vs. DNR terminology. The ease with which the terminology change can be practically incorporated depends on many factors such as costs and staff reeducation. [1]

Contents

DNR vs. AND

DNR orders range in the extent of life-saving measures to be avoided, from solely prohibiting the use of resuscitation to prohibiting any action seen as life extending. Because there are many parties involved in a patient's end of life care - significant others, family, personal doctors, specialists and nurses - DNR orders are not always completely clear, leaving open possible violation of the patient's wishes. [1] DNR terminology was replaced in 2005 by the American Heart Association with Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) in an effort to make clearer the meaning of the order. [3] However, DNR remains the popularly understood and used term in the medical and layperson settings. AND is yet another phrase for similar orders, and implementing it involves a term change. [3] [4]

Those who propose to replace DNR orders with AND orders posit that AND is less ambiguous, clearly instructing medical personnel to not use any artificial, life extending measures. This would be especially helpful in regards to emergency care, when medical personnel who are unfamiliar with the patient must decide what medical practices should be used. Pros are that AND increases clarity on meaning and the choice of life or death. [3] AND orders also don't use negative wording that could be confusing to interpret. Furthermore, proponents of AND claim that because it contains "death" in the title it is more clear to the patient and family exactly what the patient is agreeing to. Critics of AND claim it is simply the replacement of one ambiguous term with another. Cons include that death can be vague and CPR isn't mentioned in the phrase. [3] Just as DNR particulars vary, so too would AND particulars vary. [3] Thus, they argue that change would be ineffective.

Ethics

AND terminology represents an ideology of patient care that emphasizes bodily autonomy and respect of the individual. [1] This is in contrast to the terminology associated with DNR, or "do not resuscitate," which has been criticized for placing emphasis on potential negative outcomes associated with hospitalization, i.e. the act of "not" resuscitating is a conscious decision to "not" engage in life-extending care. Proponents of AND argue that, by "allowing" natural death, the provider is, instead, consciously deciding to engage in care; although such care is not life-extending, this form of care respects the wishes of patients to die peacefully and without suffering. [5]

AND and DNR share similar ethical considerations with regards to end-of-life care. These considerations can involve the four main principles of biomedical ethics, including autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. [6] Autonomy can be thought of as a patient's right to self-determination and the right to decide what kind of care they should receive, which can be achieved through ANDs or DNRs. The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence require that the healthcare providers are aware of their patient's AND and DNR statuses, and of their roles in that patient's end-of-life care. Lastly, the principle of justice refers to the obligation for healthcare providers to advocate for fair and appropriate treatment of their patients at the end of their lives, which requires abiding by the conditions expressed through AND and DNR. [7]

In the cases of attempted suicide or medical mismanagement, there are questions around the meaning of what a "natural" death is. It is argued that in these cases, physicians should have the capability to revoke a patient's DNR or AND, though a wide consensus has yet to be reached. [8] [9]

Studies and Outcomes

Most studies regarding AND are surveys based on hypothetical situations and are given to specific groups. One study gave a scenario regarding loved ones to nurses, nursing students, and people with no nursing background. [2] Each group rated how likely they were to agree to end of life care when DNR or AND was used. Participants were significantly more likely to agree to end of life care when AND was used.

Another study found similar results when giving a scenario to 524 adults- end of life care was more accepted when AND was used. [10]

However, when patients with cancer were given a scenario about how much time they had left to live (1 year, 6 months, or 1 month), the results were different. In two studies conducted by the same authors, there was no significant difference in choosing end of life care when AND or DNR was used. [11] [12]

Finally, an anonymous survey asked residents and doctors about their experience with end of life care after their hospital switched to using AND over DNR. A majority agreed that using AND improved discussions about end of life care and decreased the burden of decision making. [13]

Future Directions

There are barriers that exist in implementing "allow natural death". Some argue that costs will occur with the need to reeducate clinical staff and replace forms and edit electronic medical databases. People are looking into high-end care for when it comes to end of life decisions and AND can help provide more autonomy for patients. [3]

See also

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advance healthcare directive</span> Legal document

An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Do not resuscitate</span> Legal order saying not to perform CPR if heart stops

A do-not-resuscitate order (DNR), also known as Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR), Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), no code or allow natural death, is a medical order, written or oral depending on country, indicating that a person should not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if that person's heart stops beating. Sometimes these decisions and the relevant documents also encompass decisions around other critical or life-prolonging medical interventions. The legal status and processes surrounding DNR orders vary from country to country. Most commonly, the order is placed by a physician based on a combination of medical judgement and patient involvement.

Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research. Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal. It is important to note that these four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and that they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics. However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation. Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life support</span> In medicine

Life support comprises the treatments and techniques performed in an emergency in order to support life after the failure of one or more vital organs. Healthcare providers and emergency medical technicians are generally certified to perform basic and advanced life support procedures; however, basic life support is sometimes provided at the scene of an emergency by family members or bystanders before emergency services arrive. In the case of cardiac injuries, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initiated by bystanders or family members 25% of the time. Basic life support techniques, such as performing CPR on a victim of cardiac arrest, can double or even triple that patient's chance of survival. Other types of basic life support include relief from choking, staunching of bleeding by direct compression and elevation above the heart, first aid, and the use of an automated external defibrillator.

Palliative care is an interdisciplinary medical caregiving approach aimed at optimizing quality of life and mitigating suffering among people with serious, complex, and often terminal illnesses. Within the published literature, many definitions of palliative care exist. The World Health Organization (WHO) describes palliative care as "an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial, and spiritual". In the past, palliative care was a disease specific approach, but today the WHO takes a broader patient-centered approach that suggests that the principles of palliative care should be applied as early as possible to any chronic and ultimately fatal illness. This shift was important because if a disease-oriented approach is followed, the needs and preferences of the patient are not fully met and aspects of care, such as pain, quality of life, and social support, as well as spiritual and emotional needs, fail to be addressed. Rather, a patient-centered model prioritizes relief of suffering and tailors care to increase the quality of life for terminally ill patients.

Prior to the introduction of brain death into law in the mid to late 1970s, all organ transplants from cadaveric donors came from non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs).

In medicine, specifically in end-of-life care, palliative sedation is the palliative practice of relieving distress in a terminally ill person in the last hours or days of a dying person's life, usually by means of a continuous intravenous or subcutaneous infusion of a sedative drug, or by means of a specialized catheter designed to provide comfortable and discreet administration of ongoing medications via the rectal route.

Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is expected to result in the death of the patient. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer, dementia or advanced heart disease than for injury. In popular use, it indicates a disease that will progress until death with near absolute certainty, regardless of treatment. A patient who has such an illness may be referred to as a terminal patient, terminally ill or simply as being terminal. There is no standardized life expectancy for a patient to be considered terminal, although it is generally months or less. Life expectancy for terminal patients is a rough estimate given by the physician based on previous data and does not always reflect true longevity. An illness which is lifelong but not fatal is a chronic condition.

Futile medical care is the continued provision of medical care or treatment to a patient when there is no reasonable hope of a cure or benefit.

In medicine, dysthanasia means "bad death" and is considered a common fault of modern medicine.

End-of-life care refers to health care provided in the time leading up to a person's death. End-of-life care can be provided in the hours, days, or months before a person dies and encompasses care and support for a person's mental and emotional needs, physical comfort, spiritual needs, and practical tasks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philosophy of healthcare</span>

The philosophy of healthcare is the study of the ethics, processes, and people which constitute the maintenance of health for human beings. For the most part, however, the philosophy of healthcare is best approached as an indelible component of human social structures. That is, the societal institution of healthcare can be seen as a necessary phenomenon of human civilization whereby an individual continually seeks to improve, mend, and alter the overall nature and quality of their life. This perennial concern is especially prominent in modern political liberalism, wherein health has been understood as the foundational good necessary for public life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hospice care in the United States</span>

In the United States, hospice care is a type and philosophy of end-of-life care which focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's symptoms. These symptoms can be physical, emotional, spiritual or social in nature. The concept of hospice as a place to treat the incurably ill has been evolving since the 11th century. Hospice care was introduced to the United States in the 1970s in response to the work of Cicely Saunders in the United Kingdom. This part of health care has expanded as people face a variety of issues with terminal illness. In the United States, it is distinguished by extensive use of volunteers and a greater emphasis on the patient's psychological needs in coming to terms with dying.

MOLST is an acronym for Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. The MOLST Program is an initiative to facilitate end-of-life medical decision-making in New York State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio and Maryland, that involves use of the MOLST form. Most other U.S. states have similar initiatives, such as Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. In New York state, the MOLST form is a New York State Department of Health form. MOLST is for patients such as a terminally ill patient, whether or not treatment is provided. For this example, assume the patient retains medical decision-making capacity and wants to die naturally in a residential setting, not in the intensive-care unit of a hospital on a ventilator with a feeding tube. Using MOLST, with the informed consent of the patient, the patient's doctor could issue medical orders for life-sustaining treatment, including any or all of the following medical orders: provide comfort measures only; do not attempt resuscitation ; do not intubate; do not hospitalize; no feeding tube; no IV fluids; do not use antibiotics; no dialysis; no transfusions. The orders should be honored by all health care providers in any setting, including emergency responders who are summoned by a 9-1-1 telephone call after the patient loses medical decision-making capacity.

Terminal dehydration is dehydration to the point of death. Some scholars make a distinction between "terminal dehydration" and "termination by dehydration". Courts in the United States generally do not recognize prisoners as having a right to die by voluntary dehydration, since they view it as suicide.

Thomas Tomlinson is a philosophy professor and medical ethicist currently teaching at Michigan State University, where he holds a joint appointment in the Lyman Briggs College and the philosophy department.

POLST is an approach to improving end-of-life care in the United States, encouraging providers to speak with the severely ill and create specific medical orders to be honored by health care workers during a medical crisis. POLST began in Oregon in 1991 and currently exists in 46 states; some of the 46 states have the program in development. The POLST document is a standardized, portable, brightly colored single page medical order that documents a conversation between a provider and an individual with a serious illness or frailty towards the end of life. A POLST form allows emergency medical services to provide treatment that the individual prefers before possibly transporting to an emergency facility.

Slow code refers to the practice in a hospital or other medical centre to purposely respond slowly or incompletely to a patient in cardiac arrest, particularly in situations for which cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is thought to be of no medical benefit by the medical staff. The related term show code refers to the practice of a medical response that is medically futile, but is attempted for the benefit of the patient's family and loved ones. However, the terms are often used interchangeably.

Maternal somatic support after brain death occurs when a brain dead patient is pregnant and their body is kept alive to deliver a fetus. It occurs very rarely internationally. Even among brain dead patients, in a U.S. study of 252 brain dead patients from 1990–96, only 5 (2.8%) cases involved pregnant women between 15 and 45 years of age.

ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. It is an emergency care and treatment plan (ECTP) used in parts of the United Kingdom, in which personalized recommendations for future emergency clinical care and treatment are created through discussion between health care professionals and a person. These recommendations are then documented on a ReSPECT form.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Schlairet, Maura C (2013). "Allow-Natural-Death (AND) Orders: Legal, Ethical, And Practical Considerations". HEC Forum. 25 (2): 161–171. doi:10.1007/s10730-012-9181-1. PMID   22752437. S2CID   3291552.
  2. 1 2 Venneman, S.S. (2008). "'Allow Natural Death' Versus 'Do Not Resuscitate': Three Words That Can Change A Life". Journal of Medical Ethics. 34 (1): 2–6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018317 . PMID   18156510. S2CID   7414134.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breault, Joseph L (2011). "DNR, DNAR, or AND? Is Language Important?". The Ochsner Journal. 11 (4): 302–306. ISSN   1524-5012. PMC   3241061 . PMID   22190879.
  4. 1 2 Knox, Crissy; Vereb, John A. (December 2005). "Allow Natural Death: A More Humane Approach to Discussing End-of-Life Directives". Journal of Emergency Nursing. 31 (6): 560–561. doi:10.1016/j.jen.2005.06.020. PMID   16308044.
  5. ↑ Stecher, Jo (July 2008). "'Allow Natural Death' vs. 'Do Not Resuscitate'". The American Journal of Nursing. 108 (7): 11. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000325789.62339.2e. ISSN   0002-936X. PMID   18580104.
  6. ↑ Beauchamp, TL (1979). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  7. 1 2 Akdeniz, Melahat; Yardımcı, Bülent; Kavukcu, Ethem (2021). "Ethical considerations at the end-of-life care". SAGE Open Medicine. 9: 20503121211000918. doi:10.1177/20503121211000918. ISSN   2050-3121. PMC   7958189 . PMID   33786182.
  8. ↑ Humble, Michael Brian (2014-11-01). "Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders and Suicide Attempts: What Is the Moral Duty of the Physician?". The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. 14 (4): 661–671. doi:10.5840/ncbq201414469 . Retrieved 2021-09-13.
  9. ↑ Hébert, Philip C.; Selby, Debbie (2014-04-15). "Should a reversible, but lethal, incident not be treated when a patient has a do-not-resuscitate order?". CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal. 186 (7): 528–530. doi:10.1503/cmaj.111772. ISSN   0820-3946. PMC   3986316 . PMID   23630240.
  10. 1 2 Fan, Sheng-Yu; Wang, Ying-Wei; Lin, I-Mei (2018-10-10). "Allow natural death versus do-not-resuscitate: titles, information contents, outcomes, and the considerations related to do-not-resuscitate decision". BMC Palliative Care. 17 (1): 114. doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0367-4. ISSN   1472-684X. PMC   6180419 . PMID   30305068.
  11. ↑ Emuron, Dennis Omoding; Miljkovic, Milos; Rhodes, Lori; Abraham, Joseph; Miller, Kenneth David (2013-05-20). "Are "Allow Natural Death" orders preferable to "Do Not Resuscitate" orders for patients with advanced cancer?". Journal of Clinical Oncology. 31 (15_suppl): e20685. doi:10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e20685. ISSN   0732-183X.
  12. 1 2 Miljković, Miloš D.; Emuron, Dennis; Rhodes, Lori; Abraham, Joseph; Miller, Kenneth (May 2015). ""Allow Natural Death" versus "Do Not Resuscitate": What Do Patients with Advanced Cancer Choose?". Journal of Palliative Medicine. 18 (5): 457–460. doi:10.1089/jpm.2014.0369. ISSN   1557-7740. PMC   4442561 . PMID   25825919.
  13. ↑ Lutchmansingh, Denyse; Maroz, Natallia; Allen, Kenyani; Wilson, Thomas; Scott, Penelope; Mete, Mihriye (2012-05-01), ""Allow Natural Death". What Have We Learned?", C105. ETHICS AND END OF LIFE CARE IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, American Thoracic Society International Conference Abstracts, American Thoracic Society, pp. A5217, doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2012.185.1_meetingabstracts.a5217 , retrieved 2021-09-13
  14. ↑ Wittmann-Price, Ruth; Celia, Linda M. (Nov–Dec 2010). "Exploring perceptions of "do not resuscitate" and "allowing natural death" among physicians and nurses". Holistic Nursing Practice. 24 (6): 333–337. doi:10.1097/HNP.0b013e3181fbb79f. ISSN   1550-5138. PMID   21037457. S2CID   35046347.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.