←back to thread

Doctors' estimates of the feasibility of preserving the dying for future revival

(www.medrxiv.org)
55 points arielzj | 3 comments | 08 Dec 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
baxtr ◴[08 Dec 25 22:49 UTC] No.46198734[source]▶
> Conclusions and Relevance: US physicians assigned a median 25.5% probability to preservation retaining neural information under ideal conditions in a manner potentially compatible with future patient revival. The majority support for pre-mortem anticoagulation and substantial support for pre-cardiac arrest initiation indicate that many physicians would consider accommodating patient requests for preservation-enhancing interventions. These findings may inform development of clinical guidelines, though the speculative nature of the estimates warrants consideration.
replies(2): >>46198871 #>>46205344 #
DennisP ◴[08 Dec 25 23:00 UTC] No.46198871[source]▶
That's a way higher number than I expected.
replies(2): >>46198951 #>>46198999 #
nyeah ◴[08 Dec 25 23:09 UTC] No.46198951[source]▶
I worry that there's a selection bias: physicians who even bothered to respond to a survey on this topic.
replies(1): >>46203488 #
arielzj ◴[09 Dec 25 10:50 UTC] No.46203488[source]▶
These were physicians who were being paid to complete surveys - no reason to think they were more likely to select/reject this one over any of the others available to them at the time.
replies(1): >>46205185 #
1. nyeah ◴[09 Dec 25 14:21 UTC] No.46205185[source]▶
<puzzled frown>. There's at least one reason. It's in the comment you responded to.
replies(2): >>46205351 #>>46208514 #
2. IAmBroom ◴[09 Dec 25 14:38 UTC] No.46205351[source]▶
Two: the phrase "being paid".
3. overtone1000 ◴[09 Dec 25 18:24 UTC] No.46208514[source]▶
Apologies, that was my mistake. The subspecialties I thought weren't included were reported in detail in one of the figures, and they were some of the more optimistic groups. The result is surprising to me.