Regulating Hearts and Minds

The Mismatch of Law, Custom, and Resuscitation Decisions

Published in: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 51, No. 10, Oct. 2003, Editorial, p. 1502-1503

Posted on on January 01, 2003

by Joanne Lynn, Cria O. Gregory

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Washington State allows routine orders against resuscitation in hospitals or nursing homes but requires a special procedure and form for emergency medical workers not to perform resuscitation when the patient is anywhere else. If the Emergency Medical Service-No Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (EMS-no CPR) form has not been signed by a physician and presented immediately upon the emergency workers’ arrival, emergency workers are obliged to initiate resuscitation. Yet most physicians did not know the process, and their patients could have had the protection against resuscitation that the law allows. In addition, the state Department of Health's website gives no information under such headings as "Do Not Resuscitate," "No CPR," or even the more general "Advance Directive." Today there are typically years between "get sick" and "die," with the average person having 2 to 3 years of disability before death. The federal Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) went into effect in 1991, charging all healthcare providers who were paid by Medicare or Medicaid to ask patients whether they had an advance directive and to provide patients with information about their rights under state law concerning healthcare decision-making. This information could provide an opportunity to help patients to think about their options regarding the types and extent of medical care that they would want if they were no longer able to make those decisions themselves. The time is upon us to rethink how to evaluate resuscitation. People coming to the end of life with fragile health do not do well with resuscitation. Washington State is implementing a new policy to use a version of the Physician's Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POSLT) form. This more comprehensive form describes the patient's situation, names proxy decision makers and key contacts, and documents decisions concerning resuscitation and other medical interventions such as antibiotics and artificial feedings. The POLST procedure makes more sense than the old policy, because it addresses a range of considerations that affect patient well-being, and it stays with the patient in every setting. Being useful to the patient will make good advance care planning more appealing to physicians, but deliberate measures to encourage awareness and use of the POLST are also in order.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.