Patients are often encouraged to make wishes known with a living will or other instrument. If someone says they would not want resuscitation if their heart stopped, they are said to be DNR, as in Do Not Resuscitate, or more accurately DNAR, Do Not Attempt Resuscitation. Success rates one month after out of hospital cardiac arrests when CPR is performed are only about 4.9% to 9.2%.
In Washington State per a directive it often say,
“(a) If at any time I should be diagnosed in writing to be in a terminal condition by the attending physician, or in a permanent unconscious condition by two physicians, and where the application of life-sustaining treatment would serve only to artificially prolong the process of my dying, I direct that such treatment be withheld or withdrawn, and that I be permitted to die naturally. I understand by using this form that a terminal condition means an incurable and irreversible condition caused by injury, disease, or illness, that would within reasonable medical judgment cause death within a reasonable period of time in accordance with accepted medical standards, and where the application of life-sustaining treatment would serve only to prolong the process of dying. I further understand in using this form that a permanent unconscious condition means an incurable and irreversible condition in which I am medically assessed within reasonable medical judgment as having no reasonable probability of recovery from an irreversible coma or a persistent vegetative state.”
For many patients this is reasonable, but not for all. No one lives forever, but even a generally healthy 98-year-old does not have a terminal condition. Many of my older patients tell me they are DNR, but most are surprised when I tell them their health care directive says they would want to have CPR and get shocked with a defibrillator if their heart stopped, as they do not have a terminal condition.
I think this is probably a failure of lawyers drawing up the health care directive to modify the language to what makes sense for their clients. I’m not a lawyer, but they might add something like:
(b) If I attain the age of 80-years-old, then I do not want to have my life artificially prolonged, other than using medications, including intravenous medications, and oxygen. An exception is that if I’m undergoing a procedure and develop a cardiac rhythm not compatible with life, then I would approve of an immediate attempt at shocking my heart back into rhythm if the physician deems there is a reasonable chance of success.
Just because a lawyer inserts boilerplate language, does not mean it cannot be changed.
World's Best Site - Thoughts on Medicine and Other Topics 