Chen Y-Y, Youngner S J
Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Dec;34(12):887-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024570.
Venneman and colleagues argue that "do not resuscitate" (DNR) is problematic and should be replaced by "allow natural death" (AND). Their argument is flawed. First, while end-of-life discussions should be as positive as possible, they cannot and should not sidestep painful but necessary confrontations with morality. Second, while DNR can indeed be nonspecific and confusing, AND merely replaces one problematic term with another. Finally, the study's results are not generalisable to the populations of physicians and working nurses and certainly do not support the authors' claim that there is a movement to replace DNR with AND.
文内曼及其同事认为“不要复苏”(DNR)存在问题,应该用“允许自然死亡”(AND)取而代之。他们的论点存在缺陷。首先,虽然临终讨论应尽可能积极,但它们无法也不应回避与道德相关的痛苦却必要的交锋。其次,虽然DNR确实可能不具体且令人困惑,但AND只是用一个有问题的术语替换了另一个。最后,该研究的结果不能推广到医生和在职护士群体,当然也不支持作者关于存在用AND取代DNR的趋势这一说法。