Legitimating do-not-resuscitate orders: a discursive study of cancer patients' speech.
This article examines how patients with cancer construct and legitimate do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Semi-structured interviews with 23 outpatients attending an oncology clinic were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in accordance with discourse-analytic methodology. Results indicate some variability for participants regarding the meaning of DNR orders, which were nonetheless viewed as appropriate and desirable. The patient's subsequent death was legitimated primarily through the invocation of highly valorized discourses within Western society: nature, autonomy, and compassion. Non-compliance with DNR orders, or the instigation of CPR was seen as violating nature, infringing autonomy, and as uncompassionate. The combined effect was to construct dying as a natural event which is the concern of the individual patient and their family, endorsing medical non-intervention in the process. This research provides support, from the patients' viewpoint, for a policy of non-intervention when death is imminent and inevitable, and for those questioning the wisdom of a default policy of initiating CPR on any hospitalized patient, especially those patients inevitably in the process of dying.
Eliott
Jaklin A
JA
Royal Adelaide Hospital Cancer Research Centre, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Olver
Ian N
IN
D001293:Attitude to Death; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007406:Interview, Psychological; D008297:Male; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000523:psychology* / Q000628:therapy; D010361:Patients / Q000523:psychology*; D016414:Resuscitation Orders / Q000523:psychology*