Betting on CPR: a modern version of Pascal’s Wager

Abstract

Many patients believe that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is more likely to be successful than it really is in clinical practice. Even when working with accurate information, some nevertheless remain resolute in demanding maximal treatment. They maintain that even if survival after cardiac arrest with CPR is extremely low, the fact remains that it is still greater than the probability of survival after cardiac arrest without CPR (ie, zero). Without realising it, this line of reasoning is strikingly similar to Pascal’s Wager, a Renaissance-era argument for accepting the proposition for God’s existence. But while the original argument is quite logical—if not universally compelling—the modern variant makes several erroneous assumptions. The authors here present a case of a patient who unwittingly appeals to Pascal’s Wager to explain his request for maximal treatment, in order to highlight the crucial divergences from the original Wager. In understanding the faulty assumptions inherent in the application of Pascal’s Wager to code status decisions—and identifying the underlying motivations which the Wager serves to confirm—providers can better ensure that the true values and preferences of patients are upheld.

Managing a Suicidal or Gravely Disabled Patient on an Involuntary Psychiatric Hold and Who Has End-ofLife Orders: Key Factors to Consider in an Emergency Room Setting

“…Resuscitate, intubate, hospitalize, operate, any treatment, etc.? Whether the decision is to stop all treatment or do maximal treatment (such as CPR), patients themselves may not understand the complexity of orders while they are dealing with the emotional component of a major decision [60]in those critical clinical moments. Thoroughly discussing the intensity of care and proposed interventions at the end-of-life are an important conversation to have with patients [61].…”

AI support for ethical decision-making around resuscitation: proceed with care

“…Others may base their decision on inaccurate assumptions. For instance, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is not as successful as it is often perceived [20], so patients may overestimate its benefits and disregard its potential harms when taking their decision. Also, it has been shown that relatives acting as surrogate decision makers on life-sustaining treatment frequently feel overburdened [21] and make choices that often do not resonate with the patient's preferences [21,22].…”

Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Thematic Analysis of a Systematic Review of Reviews

“… 16 Meanwhile, many patients lack an advance directive or a surrogate who can decide for them, so strangers have to make the choices 17 ; Patients also have difficulties with planning their future care and understanding resuscitation scenarios, so they may not communicate their wishes or may have unrealistic expectations (eg, overestimating the success of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation). 18 Moreover, relatives who act as surrogates may experience stress and may not respect the patient's preferences. 19 These are only a few examples that demonstrate the need for novel approaches to decision making within the healthcare service delivery system.…”