The dilemma of whether to allow relatives to see or even touch their loved one while she undergoes cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been discussed for roughly four decades. However, Family Presence During Adult Resuscitation is still not widely implemented. In this paper, I espouse relational autonomy to make a case for a clinical approach of family-centered care and FPDR. In recent years, family-centered care has gained increasing support. I argue that relational autonomy provides a conceptual framework for both FCC and FPDR. (...) In turn, FCC provides a plausible clinical approach to justify FPDR, while the empirical evidence that supports FPDR provides a useful example to justify FCC. (shrink)

BackgroundFamily presence during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation is still not widely implemented. Based on empirical evidence, various national and international professional organizations recommend allowing relatives to be present during resuscitation. However, healthcare providers worldwide are still reluctant to make it standard care.PurposeThis paper is a part of an ongoing cross-cultural study that aims to solicit attitudes of healthcare providers working in emergency departments towards family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This paper reports the qualitative data from surveying healthcare providers working in an (...) emergency department at a university-affiliated hospital in Singapore.MethodHealthcare workers were asked to fill out an online survey, including both quantitative and qualitative questions. Their attitudes were critically analyzed and compared with existing empirical data.ResultsMajority of healthcare workers believed that relatives should not be present during c... (shrink)

Many families of patients hold the view that it is their right to be present during a loved one's resuscitation, while the majority of patients also express the comfort and support they would feel by having them there. Currently, family presence is more commonly accepted in paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation than adult CPR. Even though many guidelines are in favour of this practice and recognise potential benefits, healthcare professionals are hesitant to support adult family presence to the extent that paediatric family (...) presence is supported. However, in this paper, we suggest that the ethical case to justify family presence during paediatric resuscitation is weaker than the justification of family presence during adult resuscitation. We go on to support this claim using three main arguments that people use in clinical ethics to justify FPDR. These include scarcity of evidence documenting disruption, psychological benefits to family members following the incident and respect for patient autonomy. We demonstrate that these arguments actually apply more strongly to A-FPDR compared with P-FPDR, thereby questioning the common attitude of healthcare professionals of allowing the latter while mostly opposing A-FPDR. Importantly, we do not wish to suggest that P-FPDR should not be allowed. Rather, we suggest that since P-FPDR is commonly allowed, so should A-FPDR. This is because the aforementioned arguments that are used to justify FPDR in general actually make a stronger case for A-FPDR. (shrink)