I did read the article. I understand and agree with much of the thrust of it. I also agree that issues such as advance directives are the business of the patient, his/her family and the doctors.
But what I read in the article is frankly a sneering dismissal of the value of cardiopulmonary resuscitation when I have seen it work to great benefit. (With, of course, rapid application of defibrillation).
I just think that the author needs to to be less dismissive in his assessment of CPR and and a little more clear in the fact that he questions the value or wisdom in it when applied to a clearly terminal patient.
” ...think...author needs to be... a little more clear in the fact that he questions the value or wisdom in it when applied to a clearly terminal patient.”
I just think the author was perfectly clear with his point as you have come around to seeing it.