Arai T, Namiki A, Amaha K, Shigematsu A, Suzuki M, Kimura S, Miyazaki H, Nagaro T, Ogino K
Committee on Ethics, Japanese Society of Reanimatology.
Masui. 1994 Apr;43(4):600-11.
A questionnaire on the use of DNR-order was conducted on 427 trustee members of Japan Society of Reanimatology, Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology with responses from 307 or 71.9%. The results of the questionnaire are as follows: DNR-order is unnecessary, 2.9%. Necessary depending on the situation, 96.7%. Here dying in dignity was the main reason for necessity of DNR-order and ethical, legal and technical problems were the reasons cited for objection. Patients' will is indispensable for DNR-order, 11.4%. Patients' will is not indispensable, 84.9%. Quality and quantity of treatment after the decision of DNR-order should not be limited or withdrawn, 21.2%. Should be withdrawn except for respirator, 60.6%. The percentage of those who had carried out a DNR-order was 69.1% (most of them more than once), but half of them did not describe the order on the chart. A guideline for a DNR-order by scientific societies and/or governmental policy for a DNR-order should be made and publicized not only for the benefit of the patients and their families but also for physicians themselves.
针对日本复苏学会、重症医学与麻醉学会的427名理事成员进行了一项关于使用“不要复苏”（DNR）医嘱的问卷调查，收到307份回复，回复率为71.9%。问卷调查结果如下：认为DNR医嘱不必要的占2.9%；视情况而定认为有必要的占96.7%。在此，尊严死是DNR医嘱必要的主要原因，而伦理、法律和技术问题是反对的理由。患者意愿对DNR医嘱不可或缺的占11.4%；患者意愿并非不可或缺的占84.9%。决定DNR医嘱后治疗的质量和数量不应受限或停止的占21.2%；除呼吸机外应停止的占60.6%。执行过DNR医嘱的比例为69.1%（其中大多数不止一次），但其中一半未在病历上记录该医嘱。科学学会和/或政府应制定并公布DNR医嘱指南，这不仅有利于患者及其家属，也有利于医生自身。
