It seems very silly to write an article like this without a single mention of the fact that CPR is only performed on people who are already dead, so any success rates and complications (eg broken ribs) have to be understood in the context of the alternative to providing care, namely that the person stays dead. This is something that’s been emphasized to me in every CPR class I’ve ever taken, which suggests the author’s research process probably has some room for improvement.
> This is something that’s been emphasized to me in every CPR class I’ve ever taken
I have no doubt that's the case, but I don't think that's in conflict with what the article is about? To quote: "A study of surrogate decision makers for ICU patients found that 72 percent of respondents believed that CPR had a success rate greater than 75 percent" Presumably, none of those ICU patients had CPR training.
Also the entire moral distress about "questioning whether the patient even wanted extreme life-saving measures" doesn't really seem in conflict with that. Whether you phrase it as a "life-saving measure" or "the person is already dead" seems a bit semantic. This also ties in with the first point, because as a patient I want to be able to make an informed decision about whether the downsides of a life-saving measure is worth the cost. If you're 25 and fit? It probably is. If you're 89? Well, quite a few people would say it's not.
And merely taking the training will help you deal with other aspects of emergency first aid. The Red Cross's training really pounds in the "check if the scene is safe", etc. sequence that you need to be effective under extreme stress.
