CPR Effectiveness Debate

I'd say basic CPR, you never know

As I understand it, rescue breathing is indicated.

Someone else commented this on the thread, but my understanding is that some non-zero percentage (maybe even non-trivial percentage) of people without, say, a pulse can be revived only at a hospital but not by an EMT (because of equipment or skills, I guess?). This decision forecloses that possibility completely.

CPR is nearly worthless, but not always.

This type of situation is exactly the reason AEDs are now found all over in public places. Sure, CPR for several hours does not yield positive outcomes. But if this guy is slumped because of a shockable rhythm, that AED in the field is not at all useless - it will likely save his life, and minimize the deficits he experiences afterward. Especially on a plane, where the person was likely noticed down minutes after his problem started.

In addition to what Josh says, in ambiguous situations, we will begin CPR or other life-saving measures whilst efforts are made to obtain/ascertain. We can always discontinue these efforts - on the other hand, delayed starts of such measures are more likely (if they result in survival at all) to end up with exactly the kinds of situations described here, brain damage, serious side effects, and the like.

It's a little surprising to me they didn't even attempt CPR.

A man needs CPR, post a question on Hacker News, still waits for discussion to converge.

Sorry! You are right, not CPR. Just rescue breathing!

Why not a helicopter with space to do CPR etc? As is already done...