Wording Effects on Consent to DNAR

This paper investigates the impact of wording effects on individuals’ attitudes toward “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) orders through a series of online experiments. The results show that subtle differences in wording significantly influence agreement with DNAR orders. Specifically, framing DNAR as a benefit or resuscitation as a potential harm increased acceptance, as did presenting DNAR as a form of “natural end-of-life care.” These findings underscore the powerful role of language in shaping patients’ and families’ decisions in critical end-of-life contexts. The paper also examines the ethical implications of such communicative strategies. We argue that, on the one hand, selective wording may be morally justifiable if it aligns with the patient’s best interests and respects their autonomy. On the other hand, if the use of cognitive biases in medical decision-making is deemed morally problematic, practitioners are ethically obligated to minimize the influence of such biases to uphold the principles of informed consent.