We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Restraint therapy is instituted to prevent injuries to patients or others by restricting a patient's movement. Used appropriately, restraint therapy reduces patient risk and improves outcome. Otherwise, restraint can cause accidental injury or even death. Physicians are ethically obliged to limit the use of restraints to clinically and adequately justified situations so that associated risks can be reduced. Physicians should consider whether the benefits of restraint therapy are worth the harms. This chapter presents two case studies on the appropriate use of restraint therapy. In the first case, the desire for the restraints may have been misguided. The second case exhibits the effects of restraint therapy on the family. The ethical principles of respect for patient self-determination (including informed consent obtained from surrogate decision-makers), beneficence and non-maleficence should weigh heavily in the decision to employ restraint as a mode of treatment.
Do not resuscitate (DNR) orders developed in response to the realization that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is not appropriate for all patients, particularly those with terminal illness and otherwise dismal prognosis. Pediatric patients may or may not have the capacity to participate in medical decision making. Parents function as surrogate decision-makers, acting in the overall best interest of the child. This chapter explains CPR, citing the case study of a 4-year-old boy with metastatic neuroblastoma undergoing stem cell transplantation following intensive chemotherapy and radiation. CPR became a nearly ubiquitous final procedure for all hospitalized patients experiencing cardiopulmonary arrest, regardless of circumstances. Automatic suspension of DNR orders in the setting of anesthesia and surgery does not sufficiently recognize patients' rights to self-determination. When patients or their surrogate decision-makers, such as parents, do not wish to suspend DNR orders in the setting of surgery, few ethical arguments support ignoring their wishes.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.