Aug 9, 2025 03:23 AM
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/why-...-slow-code
INTRO: The hospital code blue alarm is supposed to signal urgency — a rush of medical professionals fighting to pull a patient back from the brink. But in certain rooms, the performance is more muted. Doctors walk, not run. Chest compressions are half-hearted. Epinephrine might be prepared but not pushed. The ritual continues, but with no real intent to reverse death.
It’s called a “slow code.” On the surface, it looks like standard CPR, but in reality the medical staff isn’t really trying to save the patient — they’re staging the appearance of resuscitation, often because they’ve been cornered by policy, family expectations, or legal threat.
It’s not like the doctors and nurses aren’t interested in doing their jobs and following their oath. The deliberate tepid attempt at resuscitation is done for show because they know the patient has no chance of making it and CPR would only inflict much pain during the patient’s last moments. It’s a deception, yes — but also, perhaps, a mercy.
For decades, slow codes have been condemned by bioethicists as dishonest and unethical. The standard has been clear: don’t fake it. If CPR is inappropriate, don’t do it. If it must be done, do it properly.
But what if the system forces doctors to take part?
A new wave of scholarship suggests we’ve misunderstood the slow code. Drawing on fresh data, historical context, and ethical theory, researchers argue that these quiet performances are not just common — they may be morally defensible, even necessary. It’s an ethical gray zone, one that reveals how hard it is to program decency into an operating system not designed for nuance... (MORE - details)
INTRO: The hospital code blue alarm is supposed to signal urgency — a rush of medical professionals fighting to pull a patient back from the brink. But in certain rooms, the performance is more muted. Doctors walk, not run. Chest compressions are half-hearted. Epinephrine might be prepared but not pushed. The ritual continues, but with no real intent to reverse death.
It’s called a “slow code.” On the surface, it looks like standard CPR, but in reality the medical staff isn’t really trying to save the patient — they’re staging the appearance of resuscitation, often because they’ve been cornered by policy, family expectations, or legal threat.
It’s not like the doctors and nurses aren’t interested in doing their jobs and following their oath. The deliberate tepid attempt at resuscitation is done for show because they know the patient has no chance of making it and CPR would only inflict much pain during the patient’s last moments. It’s a deception, yes — but also, perhaps, a mercy.
For decades, slow codes have been condemned by bioethicists as dishonest and unethical. The standard has been clear: don’t fake it. If CPR is inappropriate, don’t do it. If it must be done, do it properly.
But what if the system forces doctors to take part?
A new wave of scholarship suggests we’ve misunderstood the slow code. Drawing on fresh data, historical context, and ethical theory, researchers argue that these quiet performances are not just common — they may be morally defensible, even necessary. It’s an ethical gray zone, one that reveals how hard it is to program decency into an operating system not designed for nuance... (MORE - details)