Unilateral DNR Okay; Lack of Transparency Not Okay

Carl Winspear, who suffered from cerebral palsy, died from pneumonia at Sunderland Royal Hospital in January.  An inquest into his death recorded a verdict of natural causes.  But the 28-year-old’s family has raised concerns over a “Do Not Resuscitate” order (DNR) which was placed on Carl’s file while he was in hospital.  (Sunderland Echo) 

“The doctor made the order, as he believed that in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest, resuscitation would be unsuccessful.  “Attempted CPR is an active intervention that can be traumatic and can both cause harm and result in death occurring in a manner that the patient and people close to the patient would not have wished.  “The doctor therefore made this decision in what he believed was Carl’s best interest at the time.”

The family say the order was made at 3am one day after a decision taken by doctors.  They were not informed until the following day.  They concede that the DNR order was made because it was physically impossible to resuscitate him due to his condition.  His mother said: “It’s not that fact that they are issuing DNRs, but the fact that they are not informing the families.

It is unclear what exactly the family is asking for here.  It seems rather odd to say, "We are going to make your son DNR because resuscitation would be physiologically futile in any case."  Why disclose treatments that are not real options, not real choices?  Granted, a tougher question is whether DNR should be presented as an "option" when it has a likelihood of success greater than 0%.