Should do-not-resuscitate orders be suspended for surgical cases?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are significant misunderstandings about the management of perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders. This paper reviews some of the difficulties generated by the halting acceptance and inconsistent implementation of an ethically appropriate perioperative do-not-resuscitate policy that mandates reconsideration of existing do-not-resuscitate orders. It also offers strategies for empowerment of such a policy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advances in the ethical practice of anesthesiology have centered on determining and correcting why perioperative do-not-resuscitate policies are poorly accepted, and how to establish a hospital-wide adherence to such policies. Barriers to ethically appropriate application of perioperative do-not-resuscitate orders include differing values and misunderstandings between physicians and their patients - and also between anesthesiologists and other physicians - as well as medicolegal concerns. Policies should be designed and implemented at the level of the healthcare institution, and they must be sufficiently flexible to permit the tailoring of the perioperative do-not-resuscitate order to the autonomous choice of the patient. Such policies should state unambiguously that existing do-not-resuscitate orders are to be reevaluated, delineate responsibilities for reconsidering the do-not-resuscitate order, state available options, define necessary documentation, and list resources for help.

SUMMARY

A well written perioperative do-not-resuscitate policy is essential for surmounting obstacles to a well functioning perioperative do-not-resuscitate system.