> 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.
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.