Template:Did you know nominations/Slow code
The following is an archived discussion of Slow code's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Slow code[edit]
- ... that slow code is a purposely slow response to a patient in cardiac arrest?
Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 19:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC).
-
While I can offer medical expertise, I apologize in advance for being less than expert at determining prose length. However, I believe that the prose is less than the minimum required. Date is fine and sources are reliable. One important point: New York did not ban the practice of slow codes in 1987. Rather, it became the first state to (at least theoretically) end the need for slow codes and show codes by (1) allowing patients to refuse CPR and (2) granting immunity to those who respect a DNR order or mistakenly resuscitate someone with a DNR order. Anne (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I used wc to count characters (everything preceding the "Notes" section), and got 1569. (If we exclude headers and citation marks, its 1512 characters, which barely squeaks by the threshold by 12 characters.) I've updated the article regarding the point you've raised (which has also lengthened it slightly). Mindmatrix 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- (just butting in) - I usually use this DYK checker as the easiest way to tally the word count. 'Slow code' is coming up as 1618 characters of readable prose now. I'll just close the door quietly behind me on the way out and leave Anne to finish her review.... SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- - Source is from 1987 about a new law which may no longer be in effect. All other sources either don't mention it or speak to the ethics, which is awesome, but not necessarily indicative of a practice (in fact most note that it rarely happens (and rarely in the extreme sense). I'm a sucky reviewer but could someone just check it out? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, the practice is rare, but written about frequently (I have about 45 sources to review for info, which I'll do at some point in the future; see Google Scholar results, Google Books results, some of which contain programming-related entries). The 1987 law is still in effect (I believe it was updated at some point, it is known as Article 29-B - Orders not to resuscitate for residents of mental hygiene facilities. (This webpage has instructions on how to fetch it.) Mindmatrix 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- The practice isn't that rare. While I've never participated in it, I have observed it more than once. Human nature being what it is, people are still uncomfortable talking about death, and families still can have unrealistic expectations. When I was younger (before kids) and did long shifts that lasted on site overnight at the hospital, I had a rule: no one was allowed to die during the overnight portion of my shift. I spent hours tuning people up, but it certainly cut down on the number of codes! Anne (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I used wc to count characters (everything preceding the "Notes" section), and got 1569. (If we exclude headers and citation marks, its 1512 characters, which barely squeaks by the threshold by 12 characters.) I've updated the article regarding the point you've raised (which has also lengthened it slightly). Mindmatrix 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
