Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Too much of a good thing
  1. Zohar Lederman
  1. Correspondence to Dr Zohar Lederman, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore 129790, Singapore; zoharlederman{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Primi Ranola and James Kirkpatrick call for a change in the way we manage cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). They recommend an approach that is specifically tailored to each individual, where persons will be asked to include in their advance directive precise and detailed information in case they would undergo CPR in the future. Such information will include their wishes regarding whether to be coded, which methods to be employed during the code, the maximal duration of the code, etc. The authors conclude, “…a tailored approach to resuscitation, with a clear recommendation from the provider, based on both the clinical picture and what can be gleaned from the patient's values, would likely both support autonomous decision-making and avoid at least some unnecessary irrational resuscitative measures…”.1

Consider the following scenario. You go to see your primary care physician, and together you decide to draft some sort of advance directive. The physician first asks if you would want to be resuscitated, to which you reply “yes, of course.” Next, she asks if you would want your relatives to be present during CPR, to which you reply, “yes, of course.”2 She types in your …

View Full Text


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. The first name in the opening sentence was corrected.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you