Show and slow codes: A historical analysis of clinicians' adaptations to ethical overreach.

After briefly reviewing the historical development and ethical regulation of resuscitative technologies, this study probes why clinicians engage in the morally problematic practice of show and slow coding and why hospitals tolerate it? Studies conducted in 1995 and 2020 indicate that conscientious c...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bioethics Vol. 39; no. 4; pp. 318 - 327
Main Author: Baker, Robert
Format: Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell May2025
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=185679517&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 185679517
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        02699702
        6PJ
      jtl: Bioethics
      issn: 02699702
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: May2025
      vid: 39
      iid: 4
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        185679517
        10.1111/bioe.13367
      ppf: 318
      ppct: 9
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Show and slow codes: A historical analysis of clinicians' adaptations to ethical overreach.
      aug:
        au: Baker, Robert
        affil: Department of Philospophy, Union College, Schenectady New York, , USA
      su:
        New York (State)
        Corporate culture
        Do-not-resuscitate orders
        Occupational adaptation
        Patients' rights
        Bioethics
        Informed consent (Medical law)
        Conscience
        Do-not-resuscitate orders -- Law & legislation
        Psychology of physicians
        Cardiac massage
        Defibrillators
        Medical coding
        Mechanical ventilators
        Advanced cardiac life support
      sug:
        subj:
          Corporate culture
          Do-not-resuscitate orders
          Occupational adaptation
          Patients' rights
          Bioethics
          Informed consent (Medical law)
          Conscience
          New York (State)
          Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
          Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing
          Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing
          Do-not-resuscitate orders -- Law & legislation
          Psychology of physicians
          Cardiac massage
          Defibrillators
          Medical coding
          Mechanical ventilators
          Advanced cardiac life support
      keyword:
        Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS)
        ethics regulations
        New York State DNR Law
        non‐resuscitation (DNR)
        resuscitation
        slow code
        Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS)
        ethics regulations
        New York State DNR Law
        non‐resuscitation (DNR)
        resuscitation
        slow code
      ab: After briefly reviewing the historical development and ethical regulation of resuscitative technologies, this study probes why clinicians engage in the morally problematic practice of show and slow coding and why hospitals tolerate it? Studies conducted in 1995 and 2020 indicate that conscientious clinicians engage in these practices to protect their patients from abusive or futile resuscitation. And hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate these practices to protect conscientious clinicians from censure, dismissal, delicensing, or legal prosecution for withholding or withdrawing abusive or futile resuscitative technologies without prior patient or surrogate consent. Show and slow coding evolved in American clinical cultures in the second half of the 20th century when closed‐chest cardiac massage, defibrillators, ventilators, and other resuscitative technologies raised seemingly novel ethical questions. To address these questions, bioethics commissions, healthcare societies, lawmakers, and a Roman Catholic Pope developed ethics standards requiring clinicians to obtain patient or surrogate consent before withholding or withdrawing resuscitative technologies. They thus conferred on patients an implicit right of resuscitation even if it was abusive and/or futile. Conscientious clinicians circumvented this implicit right by show and slow coding to protect patients from abusive resuscitation. Recognizing clinicians' benign intent, hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate show and slow coding as acts of conscience, akin to civil disobedience. Thus, rescinding ethics standards and laws requiring prior patient/surrogate consent for non‐resuscitation or for cessation of resuscitative technologies decisions should end show/slow coding. Such a reform should also recognize clinicians' right of conscientious refusal to perform CPR.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N