Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Informed Consent, and Rescue:
What Provides Moral Justification for the Provision of CPR?
Johan Bester and Eric Kodish
The Journal of Clinical Ethics 30, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 67-73.
Questions related to end-of-life decision making are common in clinical ethics and may be exceedingly difficult. Chief among these are the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-resuscitate orders (DNRs). To better address such questions, clarity is needed on the values of medical ethics that underlie CPR and the relevant moral framework for making treatment decisions. An informed consent model is insufficient to provide justification for CPR. Instead, ethical justification for CPR rests on the rule of rescue and on substituted interest judgments. Patients’ known wishes and values are relevant, particularly in protecting them from unwanted CPR. Clinicians should rescue patients with the means at their disposal, as a prima facie moral imperative, unless there are compelling reasons to refrain. We present a moral framework for making decisions regarding CPR and DNR.
This .pdf file may be viewed, downloaded, and/or printed for personal use only.
Access to this .pdf will end when you close the file.
Terms and conditions:
You have purchased one-time access to a .pdf of this article.
Purchasers may not:
• Distribute a copy of the article, online or in print, without the express written permission of JCE.
• Post the article online in
any way.
• Charge another party for a copy of the article.
Click here to return to The Journal of Clinical Ethics homepage.