Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41378727›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Against Offering "Faux Codes": An Ethically Problematic Workaround.

Aimee Milliken, Richard Leiter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aimee Milliken
Richard Leiter

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In another essay in this issue of the Hasting Center Report, an argument is made in favor of offering a "faux code" in the setting of a patient who cannot say no to her family who insists her code status remain "full." Under the proposal, an unwritten agreement is made between the patient and the clinical team to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation while maintaining a "full code" status in the medical record. The ethical question in this case involves how best to support and uphold the patient's autonomy while minimizing the distress of the patient's family, and the "faux code" is proposed as an ethically supportable intervention. However, pressing ethical concerns remain. In this essay, we offer three main objections to the provision of a "faux code": the role of deceit and its consequences for public trust, the impact on nurses and trainees, and the framing of autonomy under the faux code proposal.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationPersonal AutonomyResuscitation OrdersWithholding TreatmentHumansTrustclinical ethicsdeceptionend‐of‐life carefaux codemoral distressnursingpalliative carepublic trust in health care

Identifiers

PMID41378727
PMCPMC12696794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.