The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resuscitation decisions at the end of life: medical views and the juridification of practice
Open accessAbstract
Background: Concerns about decision making related to resuscitation have led to two important challenges in the courts resulting in new legal precedents for decision-making practice. Systematic research investigating the experiences of doctors involved in decisions about resuscitation in light of the recent changes in law remains lacking. Aim: To analyse the practice of resuscitation decision making on hospital wards from the perspectives of doctors. Design: The data presented in this paper were collected as part of a wider research study of end-of-life care in an acute hospital setting. Data collection comprised ethnographic non-participant observation on two acute hospital wards and individual interviews with patients, relatives and healthcare professionals caring for patients thought to be approaching the end of life. Data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Results: Discussions and decision making about resuscitation present many challenges for those involved on acute medical wards. The data highlight the potential for multiple interpretations of legal precedents, creating misunderstandings that may impact patient care in less positive ways. Conclusions: This paper provides unique insights into how doctors respond to the changing medico-legal culture and the subsequent effects on patient care. It demonstrates how the juridification of medical practice can occur. It highlights the potential benefit of a structure to support clinicians, patients and relatives in discussing and navigating decisions around care at the end of life in line with the patient’s wishes and preferences. Recommendations for future research are made and legal ramifications are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Doctors hold varying perspectives about what involvement requires.50”
From Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“They acknowledged what a sensitive topic resuscitation could be and the difficulty in having such discussions with patients and those close to the patient whom they had never met before.50”
From Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Doctors described feeling under pressure to have discussions about resuscitation with all patients soon after their admission.”
From Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
Citations
Cites
Resuscitation policy should focus on the patient, not the decision
Fritz, Z., Slowther, A.-M., & Perkins, G. D. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j813 · Cited by 162
Fritz, Z., Malyon, A., Frankau, J. M., Parker, R. A., Cohn, S., Laroche, C. M., Palmer, C. R., & Fuld, J. P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070977 · Cited by 67
DNACPR decisions: challenging and changing practice in the wake of the Tracey judgment
Fritz, Z., Cork, N., Dodd, A., & Malyon, A. (2014) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-6-571 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1001/jama.1960.03020280004002 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2010.035725 · DOI
- 10.1093/medlaw/fwv003 · DOI
- Essex. R (David Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors. 2014. EWCA Civ 822.
- Charmaz K . Constructing grounded theory. London. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2006.
- Rock P . et al Symbolic interactionism and ethnography. In: Atkinson P , Coffey A , Delamont S , Lofland J , Lofland L , . eds. Handbook of ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2001.
- Herbert A . The role of euphemisms in healthcare communication. J Healthc Commun 2016;01.doi:10.4172/2472-1654.100014 · DOI
- Bærøe K , Bringedal B . Professionalism discretion and juridification: social inequality in health and social citizenship. In: Sinding Aasen H , Gloppen S , Magnussen A-M , eds. Juridification and social citizenship in the welfare state: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2014. · DOI
- Donnelly M . Healthcare decision-making and the law: autonomy, capacity and the limits of liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. · DOI
- 10.1136/medethics-2015-102862 · DOI
- 10.1093/medlaw/fwv004 · DOI
- Auckland, 2016, Muddying the waters of end of life decision-making: Tracey and the encroachment of law on clinical judgment, Elder Law Journal, 264, 1
Cited by
Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision-making process: scoping review
Doody, O., Davidson, H., & Lombard, J. (2025) · BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-004573 · Cited by 10
Fitton, E., Kuylen, M., Wyllie, A., Michalowski, S., Bhatt, V., & Martin, W. (2023) · The British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcad078 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- MacCormick, F. M., Emmett, C., Paes, P., & Hughes, J. C.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Northumbria University (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- MacCormick, Fiona MA
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-03-09
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 376-383
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2793103555
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Funders
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- resuscitation decisions, end-of-life care, doctors' perspectives, judicial precedent, acute hospital wards, clinician decision-making, patient preferences
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Shared, Attitude of Health Personnel, Family, Health Personnel, Humans, Terminal Care, Resuscitation Orders, Terminally Ill, Advance Care Planning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
