Restricting CPR to Patients Who Provide Informed Consent Will Not Permit Physicians to Unilaterally Refuse Requested CPR

摘要

Bishop and colleagues (2010) are rightly critical of presumed in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). But their analysis is plagued by a fundamental conflation. On the one hand, Bishop and colleagues devote significant space to targeting the "presumption that CPR / ACLS will be per-formed." On the other hand, they enthusiastically com-mend the UK model, which permits providers to unilat-erally refuse patient- or surrogate-requested CPR. Bishop and colleagues suggest that these two distinct subjects are fused in such a way that getting rid of the CPR presumption will bring us to the UK model.