Two Votes Against the Use of DNR Orders

“Letting Go” (by Allan Parachini, Jan. 3) joins the lengthy list of articles and television productions intended to persuade the public that people have an obligation to forgo preventive and restorative care in the interest of not being a burden to their families and society. Death is promoted as therapeutic and treatment as cruel. If the public can be convinced that death is preferable to life and that the origin and acceptance of this philosophy comes from the people themselves, they will then more readily accept restrictions in care.

In my experience in investigating medical complaints, I have witnessed the emphasis shift from efforts to assure adequate care for the aging and handicapped to an emphasis on death for all who can be manipulated into agreeing to let someone else determine when it is their time to “let go.” The pendulum has swung so far that the assumption now is that patients who haven’t left specific instructions that they want to live are presumed to prefer death.

Those who resist limitations in care for elderly handicapped patients are subjected to tremendous pressure to agree to No Codes or DNRs.

What are the motivations for withholding adequate care and thus prematurely precipitating death? No Codes provide medical personnel and facilities with prior immunity from civil and criminal liability and assist in cost containment, and greedy families can preserve and gain possession of inheritances without further delay. Deaths caused by human intervention would be considered crimes if they occurred outside the walls of institutions. However, because they occur within medical facilities, they are cloaked in respectability.

SARAH JONGEPIER

Lake View Terrace