Skip to main content
Log in

Orders not to resuscitate and the psychiatric hospital

  • Published:
Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1983, the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine recommended that all health care institutions be required to develop appropriate policies and procedures for withholding life-sustaining treatment from terminally ill patients. While such policies have been extensively debated, there has been little discussion of the problem in the psychiatric literature. Yet state mental hospitals handle many terminally ill patients, often without having clarified their medical responsibilities. This article focuses on Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) policies in psychiatric settings. It offers illustrative case examples and reviews the important principles and legal decisions that pertain to DNR policies. In hospitals that have no clearly defined medical standards, patients often receive inferior care. The need to develop DNR policies presents an opportunity to discover more thoughtful approaches to medical care in psychiatric hospitals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. New York State Office of Mental Health Inpatient Census Report 201, Albany, New York (1983, 1984).

  2. New York State Office of Mental Health, DMHIS Form 635/636, Albany, New York (1983, 1984).

  3. Bedell SE, Delbanco TL, Cook EF, et al.: Survival After Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Hospital.New England Journal of Medicine 309: 569–575, 1983.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life—Sustaining Treatment: A Report on the Ethical, Medical and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hilfiker F: Allowing the Debilitated to Die.New England Journal of Medicine 308: 716–719, 1983.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 1977 Mass. Adv. Sh. 2461, 370 N.E. 2d. 417, 1977.

  7. Mariner WK: Decision Making in the Care of Terminally Ill Incompetent Persons: Concerns About the Role of the Courts,J. Am. Geriat. Soc. 32(10): 739–746, 1984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Applebaum PS, Roth LH: Clinical Issues in the Assessment of Competency.Am. J. Psychiatry:138: 1462–1467, 1981.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Matter of Storar: Eichner v. Dillon. 52 N.Y. 2d 363, 438 N. Y. S. 2d 266, 1981.

  10. Annas GJ: Refusing Treatment for Incompetent Patients.New York State Journal of Medicine 80(5): 816–821, 1980.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sullivan R: “Right to Die” Rules in Terminal Cases Widened in Jersey. New York Times, Friday, January 18, 1985, p. A1, B2.

  12. Kleiman D: Death and the Court,New York Times, January 19, 1985, p. B1–2.

  13. Youngner SJ, Lewandowski W, McClish DK, et al. ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ Orders—Incidence and Implication in a Medical Intensive-Care Unit,Journal of the American Medical Association, 253: 54–57, 1985.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Veatch RM: Deciding Against Resuscitation: Encouraging Signs and Potential Dangers.Journal of the American Medical Association, 253: 77–78, 1985.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The author acknowledges the assistance of James Bakalar, J.D., Paul Litwak, J.D., and Jamie Benfield, J.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cournos, F. Orders not to resuscitate and the psychiatric hospital. Psych Quart 58, 24–31 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064036

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064036

Keywords

Navigation