Abstract
The heated national debate concerning health care must include a discussion of a patient's wishes and the implications of his or her right to determine individual medical treatment decisions, especially at the end of life. This article is an examination of physician paternalism versus patient autonomy concerning do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders within the context of utilitarian ethical theory. The author proposes effective compromise between the two; consideration of decision making on a case-by-case basis; enhanced education for all actors concerning cardiopulminary resucitation (CPR), DNR, and advanced directives; and consensus reached through democratic debate regarding the allocation of health care resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
