To the Editor: Levinson and Mills are to be lauded for their article on the need to rethink our approach to cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospitalised patients.1 They outline the barriers to open discussion at an individual and a society level. However, they have omitted a key barrier: the language that we use to discuss the topic.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Levinson M, Mills A. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation — time for a change in the paradigm? Med J Aust 2014; 201: 152-154. <MJA full text>
- 2. Meyer C. Allow natural death — an alternative to DNR? http://www. hospicepatients.org/and.html (accessed Oct 2014).
- 3. Venneman SS, Narnor-Harris P, Perish H, Hamilton M. “Allow natural death” versus “do not resuscitate”: three words that can change a life. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 2-6.
- 4. Breault JL. DNR, DNAR, or AND? Is language important? Ochsner J 2011; 11: 302-306.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.