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...
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.
>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...