Abstract

It is not unusual for patients or families to disagree with healthcare professionals (HCPs) over best treatment options. Conversation typically results and mutually agreeable choices are implemented. Rarely, but increasingly, patients or families will request, even demand, interventions the treating team believes will be ineffective (they will not achieve the intended goal) or inappropriate (the medical or moral harms clearly outweigh any potential benefits). One's duty as an HCP requires one to refuse such interventions, but resulting patient or family conflict makes such refusals challenging, even traumatic, and HCPs often acquiesce. Some states have legal options that protect HCPs and their respective institutions when they make such unilateral choices, but the process is complex, time‐consuming, and emotionally fraught. In this paper, We describe one especially difficult case, using it as a paradigmatic example of when, and why, a slow code is sometimes, if rarely, justified. We also discuss strategies HCPs can use to reduce the need for this, admittedly problematic, solution.