CASE
A 45 year old male lay in a comatose state, attached to a respirator for the past three years. The doctors say he no longer holds any hope for recovery. Furthermore, the patient’s wife and children are now unable to find resources to help pay for the life support. The attending physician suggests a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order, but the patient’s family remains hesitant to have one issued.
QUESTION
What are ethically acceptable indications for DNR; and in contrast, what is “No CPR”?
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
In the present case, the patient no longer holds hope for recovery, and the burden imposed on the family is too much. By now it seems certain that any further aggressive treatment or procedure, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), may be considered ethically extraordinary – and as such may be withheld.
The DNR avoids initiating extraordinary means of life support. It thus remains ethically acceptable, as long as the patient (or proxy) approves it. If ever the DNR is issued, what causes the patient’s death later on is not the act of omitting a certain procedure (e.g., resuscitation), but rather the disease itself.
A more beneficial alternative to “DNR” is “No CPR”. The former has a wider scope and may exclude all components of resuscitation (such as hydration, antibiotics, CPR, etc.), while the latter basically excludes only pumping the heart and intubation. Issuing a DNR could lessen the health care workers’ enthusiasm in caring for the patient, while a No CPR allows the patient to enjoy all forms of care except for CPR.
(A word of caution: experience in other countries show that a DNR order could be easily abused. Aside from not initiating extraordinary procedures, even ordinary care is at times withheld, with the aim of hastening the patient’s death.)
DISCLAIMER AS TO SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: These materials, including the original text (by the Author) and the AI-generated video content (via Google’s NotebookLM), are provided solely for educational and illustrative purposes. They present hypothetical scenarios (even though the AI-generated videos at times mistakenly say they took place in real life) and must not be construed as professional advice or a basis for operational or medical decision-making. Users are explicitly advised to seek the counsel of qualified experts and relevant bioethics committees for the proper assessment and determination of appropriate actions. The Author disclaims all liability for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or application of these materials.
Copyright (C) 2025 by Author: Fr. Gregory Ramon D. GASTON, SThD, DComm. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No reproduction, transmission, or distribution of this content may be made without the explicit written permission of the author.