Qualitative Health Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eliott, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Olver, I. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eliott, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Olver, I. N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, 442-455 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732307299198

The Implications of Dying Cancer Patients' Talk on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders

Jaklin A. Eliott

Royal Adelaide Hospital Cancer Research Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Ian N. Olver

The Cancer Council Australia, New South Wales, Australia

Current medical emphasis on autonomy requires that patients be primary in authorizing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, countermanding provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on terminally ill patients. The assumptions that patients make regarding CPR and DNR orders will influence their choices about them. Using discursive analysis, the authors examined the speech of 28 patients dying of cancer regarding the appropriateness of refraining from CPR or of instituting DNR orders. Most participants identified CPR as inappropriate in their circumstances, favoring institution of DNR orders. However, a minority drew on dominant construals of DNR orders and CPR to locate themselves outside the category of suitable candidates for DNR orders, thus justifying a preference for CPR—even though some had current DNR orders. Doctors' and patients' assessments of eligibility for DNR orders might not coincide, and when patient autonomy is presumed by patients to be determinant, discrepancies between patient expectations and instituted medical practice are inevitable.

Key Words: CPR • DNR orders • cancer • qualitative analysis • discourse analysis • decision making


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?