The in memoriam article about Jeremy Swan [1] coincided with the recent report by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network [2]. The latter may sound like the last nail on the coffin of the Swan–Ganz catheter. The controversy surrounding the benefits and risks of the use of the Swan–Ganz catheter is nothing new. It was merely a decade ago that a series of articles in JAMA [3,4] suggested that a moratorium be placed on its continued use. However, the editorial [5] accompanying the ARDS article has a more sobering tone: “It still has a role in diagnosis and in certain types of treatment, particularly the treatment of patients with suspected pulmonary arterial hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction [5]”. I also concur with Shure [5] that Swan–Ganz catheter may also have a role in patient populations not included in the NHLBI study [2], such as those with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or with conditions requiring complex fluid management. As for a moratorium on the use of the Swan–Ganz catheter, only a bad workman blames his tools [6]. Perhaps it is not the Swan–Ganz catheter but the technique of placement or the treatment following its use that is at fault [6]. Furthermore, as Shure [5] said in her editorial, if an effective new therapeutic modality that requires information obtained only by the Swan–Ganz catheter emerges, the latter still will play an important role in management of such patients. Therefore, with the passing of