Slow Codes, Ethics, and Empirical Inquiry: A Reply to Lu and Lederman

Slow codes occupy a contested position in clinical ethics, yet systematic evidence on public attitudes toward this practice remains limited. In response to criticisms raised by Lu and Lederman (2026), this article clarifies the aims, assumptions, and methodological limits of my original study on public moral judgments of slow codes. I argue that the original findings are not undermined by nonrepresentative sampling, gaps in lay knowledge, or framing artifacts, but rather reflect how nonprofessionals reason about end-of-life decisions under uncertainty. The response positions empirical moral psychology as a complementary contribution to clinical ethics and invites continued interdisciplinary dialogue on ethically contested practices such as slow codes.