Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Mandate Argumentative Essay by Nicky

Argues that "do not resuscitate" (DNR) as a national healthcare mandate should be clarified.
# 151583 | 2,345 words | 6 sources | APA | 2012 | US
Published on Jun 27, 2012 in Medical and Health (General) , Law (General) , Public Administration (General)

$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now


This paper explains that, although, "do not resuscitate" (DNR) has been a choice for patients and families facing end of life (EOL) decisions, this issue is poorly understood by the public. Next, the author presents this EOL debate and argues that a national healthcare mandate would eliminate the present ambiguity of DNR and would resolve the question of whether or not a healthcare entity and personnel should act to revive a patient whose heart stops beating. The paper concludes by outlining this recommended mandate for cases in which the patient's death is imminent.

Table of Contents:
Background on DNR
Turning Points in EOL Debate
DNR as a National Mandate

From the Paper:

"The legality of what Kervorkian did is not what is at issue here. Rather, it is the fact that patients who found their lives to be intolerable because of pain and disease could not legally or medically choose to end their lives from that suffering. Kervorkian brought to national attention the lack of control individuals have over their own life choices when the quality of life is diminished to but a painful existence, and often bed-ridden one and one which depends on modern medical technology to sustain life, but whose condition defies the legal criteria for removing life supporting technology, and pre-empts the patient's family from making that decision, but, instead, leaves the decision to sustain life to the medical practitioners. All of this would perhaps be easier for the public to accept but for the fact that there is a lack of consistency in how the medical community responds to situations on a case-by-case basis in the literature. Add to this formula the response of the far right religious conservatives, and there emerges a clear and concise need for a national mandate on the issue of EOL choices and whose choice it is.
"The need for the national mandate, and one to eliminate the influence of public opinion, is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the case of a young woman whose quality of life, and the very nature and definition of the word life, and the decision to end or artificially sustain it, became a national debate that brought even Congress to a momentary halt in national affairs in debate the matter."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • Dubbler, N. and Nimmons, D. (1993). Ethics on Call: Taking Charge of Life and Death Choices, Harmony Books/Crown Publishers, New York: New York.
  • Jones, M. and Marks, L. (1999). Disability, Divers-ability, and Legal Change, Martins and Nighoff Publishers, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, Netherlands.
  • Kieman, S. (2006). Last Rights: Rescuing the End of Life from the Medical System,
  • Kieman, C. (1973). The Enlightenment and Science in Eighteenth Century France, (Vol 59 of Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century), Voltaire Foundation, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
  • Leonhardt, D. (2009). After the Great Recession, New York Times Magazine, May 3, 2009, p. MM36; found online at, retrieved November 9, 2009.

Cite this Argumentative Essay:

APA Format

Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Mandate (2012, June 27) Retrieved August 10, 2022, from

MLA Format

"Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Mandate" 27 June 2012. Web. 10 August. 2022. <>