Totally misleading. Early CPR (+AED if available) absolutely saves lives. Article is from 2011 by a family med doctor.
Overly aggressive resuscitation attempts are definitely a problem but context matters
Overly aggressive resuscitation attempts are definitely a problem but context matters
You have to provide a denominator to make this statement. 30-day survival for out-of-hospital CPR is 10%, and discharge from the hospital (let alone functional status) is even lower.
CPR is thus a great example of the OP's thesis that doctors refuse certain things based on their poor efficacy.
https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/resources/articles/cpr...
>Survival chances decrease by 10% for every minute that immediate CPR and use of an AED is delayed.
Oh my goodness, did YOU read anything on the page? Here's a literal quote with a link to a study you could have followed if you weren't just here for outrage points:
"For the past 20 years, the survival rate for cardiac arrest has hovered around 10 percent for out-of-hospital incidences and 21 percent for in-hospital events, yet research shows that high-quality CPR has a significant impact on survival outcomes, whether inside or outside the hospital."
link: https://mycares.net/sitepages/uploads/2026/2025_flipbook/ind...
Okay. And what is the 30-day survival for cases where CPR would be otherwise indicated but are not performed?
It is a bit like complaining that jumping out of a burning airplane with a parachute is dangerous. Yes, it is. But jumping out of a parachute, or burning inside, is even more dangerous.
Great question, but it's obviously not possible to answer.
I suspect the survival rate won't be 0, and maybe won't even be less than 10%.
The point of this whole subtree is that there are interventions that people wouldn't want for themselves because the expected outcome is very poor.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/bystander-cpr-up-to-10-minut...
I can’t find a source for it, but I’m told that survival after an arrest in hospital is actually lower, due to the co-morbidities that patients have.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010...
It's important to get people to realize the benefits of early CPR and more people should be trained on how to do it, or else it won't be prompt and the outcomes will be worse. That's what the Red Cross and AHA promulgate to the public, in so many words.
Did you internalize Claude terminology, use Claude to write/translate your post, or lead Claude into temptation by being the OG?
Asking out of genuine curiosity and not at all trying to throw shade.
See https://www.yuzeh.com/etc/2021-01-24-beliefs-as-structures - folks have been using it for a while now.
Now everyone is saying "hits different", and that one drives me crazy. Old man problems.
So extended to concepts it always seemed a natural fit. I think where I picked it up in this regard was when used to describe Religion, in that you don't necessarily need the religions we have to "fill the god hole" but you need something of similar fortitude in order to maintain balance. The idea is that you can't just remove religion and then not replace it because it bears so much weight.
CPR is simply buying time, at best it can delay death in the hope the doctors can do something about whatever caused the heart to quit. Usually they can't.
AED is different. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe the shocker does not start your heart and it is never used on a stopped heart. Shocking is about the heart beating ineffectively. It has a chance of actually treating the problem, not merely buying time. If the heart is stopped the AED just sits there and says continue CPR. And people blame it for being defective.
The person closest to me was saved by CPR after cardiac arrest (and cooling at the hospital), with no neurological deficits