The term slow code refers to an intentional reduction in the pace or intensity of resuscitative efforts during a medical emergency. This can be understood as an intermediate level between full code (full resuscitation efforts) and no code (no resuscitation efforts) and serves as a symbolic gesture when intervention is considered medically futile. While some previous research acknowledges the slow code as an integral part of clinical practice, many ethicists have condemned the practice as dishonest and causing unnecessary pain for the patient. As the public's views on this issue have been largely absent from the discussion to date, two vignette experiments were performed to investigate their perceptions. The findings indicate that laypersons believe that slow codes are commonplace and often prefer them over a no code. While a full code was perceived as the standard approach and rated most ethical and least punishable, the present results do not support the widespread assumption that laypersons generally oppose slow codes, and this finding should inform ethical discussion and clinical practice.