Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. “Allow natural death” versus “do not resuscitate”: three words that can change a life.S. S. Venneman, P. Narnor-Harris, M. Perish & M. Hamilton - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):2-6.
    Physician-written “do not resuscitate” DNR orders elicit negative reactions from stakeholders that may decrease appropriate end-of-life care. The semantic significance of the phrase has led to a proposed replacement of DNR with “allow natural death” . Prior to this investigation, no scientific papers address the impact of such a change. Our results support this proposition due to increased likelihood of endorsement with the term AND.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Participation of French general practitioners in end-of-life decisions for their hospitalised patients.E. Ferrand, P. Jabre, S. Fernandez-Curiel, F. Morin, C. Vincent-Genod, P. Duvaldestin, F. Lemaire, C. Herve & J. Marty - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (12):683-687.
    Background and objective: Assuming the hypothesis that the general practitioner can and should be a key player in making end-of-life decisions for hospitalised patients, perceptions of GPs’ role assigned to them by hospital doctors in making withdrawal decisions for such patients were surveyed.Design: Questionnaire survey.Setting: Urban and rural areas.Participants: GPs.Results: The response rate was 32.2% , and it was observed that 70.8% of respondents believed that their participation in withdrawal decisions for their hospitalised patients was essential, whereas 42.1% believed that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations