On TV, CPR looks like a miracle: a few light pushes on the chest, a couple of assisted breaths, and the person sputters back to life.

“CPR has been represented in the media and TV shows and all of these other places as a relatively innocuous intervention with high rates of success from which people recover with little problem,” Jason Wasserman said on this episode of the “First Opinion Podcast.” In fact, it can be physically damaging—broken ribs, punctured lungs — and painful. And for patients who are already medically frail, it often fails.

So sometimes, particularly with patients clearly at the end of life, doctors might do something that isn’t often discussed outside of medical circles: the slow code. That’s when they intentionally move slowly, or don’t put as much effort into CPR as would be necessary to revive someone.

On this episode of the podcast, guest host Alex Hogan spoke with Wasserman and Parker Crutchfield about a recent special issue of the journal Bioethics that they edited on the slow code and a related op-ed they wrote for First Opinion. They discussed the ethical conundrum of the slow code, the response to their work from medical professionals, and why it’s particularly important to have this discussion now.

“Beyond the physical or material harms that can be associated with CPR,” Wasserman said, “we can think about what we might call dignitary harms, just harms of disrespect to the person and to the body. And I think these are especially poignant when we’re talking about futile or medically inappropriate CPR that we’re doing.”

Their conversation was also based on a recent episode of the new video series “STATus Report.”

Be sure to sign up for the weekly “First Opinion Podcast” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Get alerts about each new episode by signing up for the “First Opinion Podcast” newsletter. And don’t forget to sign up for the First Opinion newsletter, delivered every Sunday.