The "do not resuscitate" order; clinical and ethical rationale and implications.

This article describes the basic principles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and "Do not Resuscitate" command (DNR). It includes implications and related treatments, caregivers, influences and misunderstandings of patients and their families, efficacy, value, disorder about unilateral DNR, and discomfort of doctors' opinions in the early stages of treatment I will. The challenges of CPR and DNR include the definition of charitable projects, let us think of the direct and long-term value and benefits of patients and families, the concept of futility, and the perception of our goodness. The decision and process of trying cardiopulmonary resuscitation is unique in medical practice. In most organizations, programs are tried unless there is a DNR command. This method assumes emergency situations and benefits. It overturnes informed consent practices and customs because the threat of death takes precedence over other emergencies. In many communities, we believe CPR is a public good. They provide support teams and large-scale public-funded medical experts and citizenship training. The basic idea of ​​providing CPR as an emergency measure without consent is often unclear. At the time of arrest, it is impossible to consider emergency stress, goal of treatment, prospect of success and side effects. Before an emergency occurs, doctors often hesitate to discuss the possibility of cardiac arrest at regular visits, and the patient does not initiate such a dialogue. The premise of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is that life is sacred and maintains life and CPR is successful; this is consistent with the belief that someone is allowed to die. Depending on the patient's condition and prognosis, the wisdom trying to recover may decrease. In this article we outline the principles of best interests and alternative judgment, suggest larger ways to set DMR related treatment goals and plan how to interact with physicians, nurses, patients, and families. Review policies and forms developed by the organization to identify mechanisms to improve special processes such as procedures and operating rooms

Recovery involves many clinical and ethical problems and difficulties. The basic principles of bioethics are of great value in evaluating and summarizing ethical dilemmas. Patient education on end-of-life issues, including resuscitation and prior guidance, is important to improve the ability of physicians to comply with the needs of individual patients. Communication with patients and their families is a basic skill to be taught in medical education and to be practiced through careers of emergency physicians.

This article describes the basic principles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and "Do not Resuscitate" command (DNR). It includes implications and related treatments, caregivers, influences and misunderstandings of patients and their families, efficacy, value, disorder about unilateral DNR, and discomfort of doctors' opinions in the early stages of treatment I will. The challenges of CPR and DNR include the definition of charitable projects, let us think of the direct and long-term value and benefits of patients and families, the concept of futility, and the perception of our goodness. The decision and process of trying cardiopulmonary resuscitation is unique in medical practice. In most organizations, programs are tried unless there is a DNR command. This method assumes emergency situations and benefits. It overturnes informed consent's customs and customs because the threat of death outweighs other emergencies.

If clinical death is expected due to terminal disease or supportive therapy discontinuation, there is usually a "no recovery" (DNR) or "no code" command. This means that no recovery work is done and the doctor or nurse can declare a legal mortality at the onset of clinical death. Patients who are determined to have heart and lung functions with brain death may die legally without clinical death. However, there are courts who do not like to make such decisions on family religious opposition, for example Jesse Koochin. A similar problem occurred with Mordechai Dov Brody, but the child died before the court resolved the problem. On the contrary, in the case of Marlise Muñoz, despite her husband's demand, the hospital was pregnant, so he refused to take away a woman who died of a brain in a life support device for nearly two months.