10 ms·
Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented
- andrewclunn 10y agoPersonal experience that validates your life's work near the end of your life. Sir, if self actualization were a competition you would win.
- azinman2 10y ago"God put me in the seat next to you." Did God also make you choke in the first place?
- iLoch 10y ago"I don't claim to know God's plan."
- greenpizza13 10y agoYeah, this irks me as well. Why does this even have to come into play. Why not just thank Dr. Heimlich and give him all the well deserved credit? This lady could have just as easily been one of the millions of people since the maneuver was invented to have not been sitting next to Dr. Heimlich when they began to choke.
- Styx- 10y agoWhy shit all over someone else's way of viewing the world if it doesn't affect you? And none of the nonsense about Christians that don't believe in global warming or abortions or something, because you have no idea of this woman's stance on any of that. Disclaimer: I'm as agnostic as they come. EDIT: Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to criticize religious people for being religious. It is regressive and promotes animosity between the religious and the rest of us. A truly religious person will sooner die than give up their religion.
- Panoramix 10y agoNobody was shitting over anything. I certainly do not think it's ridiculous to criticize religion. It's 2016, some supernatural beliefs should not get a free pass just because people will feel offended. However, choose your battles. Elderly people saying a very common phrase is hardly something to get worked up about.
- PKop 10y agoYou make a bold assumption that "it doesn't affect you" (surely you'd agree this is up for debate no?), then the very next sentence describe political views that can be attributed directly to religious beliefs you're claiming have no affect on anyone. All ideas should be up for criticism. It is the very nature of religion somehow being off limits for debate that allows bad ideas to go unchallenged and spread.
- Styx- 10y agoAll ideas should be up for criticism, yes. But not all ideas should be criticized. The difference being that some criticisms are productive (presumably fresh, creative takes on thinking about something) and some simply serve the purpose of making the critic feel good about himself. In what way do we benefit to hear a criticism of religion for the umpteen-millionth time and on the internet of all places? No one is refining their thought processes, no one is benefiting.
- PKop 10y ago
- umanwizard 10y agoDid I think I was on hackernews but accidentally visited reddit? (I've been here for long enough that I'm allowed to say that according to the rules, btw). How does a super facile refutation of people's traditional beliefs advance the discussion at all?
- ewzimm 10y agoWhile I completely understand why this is an annoying point of view, the apparent contradiction is well understood. The official theology of many religions is that everything good comes from God, everything bad comes from people. God gave people some freedom, and they abused it to create all the problems of the world, which he is constantly working to correct, but he leaves a lot of the negative effects of our choices for our own good because we need to understand how much we need him and lots of other mysterious reasons that we wouldn't understand because we're too limited to see the big picture. It's totally legitimate to complain about not liking this point of view, but people do know what they're doing when they thank God for everything good and blame people for everything bad. I think it's important for non-religious people to understand that because so much of the world is religious and believes that God sets the standard for what's true, not the appearance of things which we're able to understand and reason through.
- woodman 10y ago> ...everything bad comes from people. You forgot the Devil, he gets blamed every so often.
- benjohnson 10y agoFrom a Christian perspective - Yes - even the choking. there's an aspect of God's will that is permissive - it is thought that God permits evil because it could allow for a higher good such as free will. Though this can't be said for sure.
- Numberwang 10y agoNihilism, gotcha.
- vinceguidry 10y agoNihilism is the position that nothing outside of the immediate has meaning. It's a polar opposite to theism, which places meaning in the hands of one or more deities.
- lomnakkus 10y ago... but then God surely can't be omnibenevolent!? (But perhaps that doctrine's been abandoned?) I'm just pointing out the contradictions in "classic" Christianity. Regardless of all that, unless we somehow come up with a coherent and agreed-upon definition of God, I don't suspect anyone's mind will be changed by logical argument. And, thus, I defeat my own argument. EDIT: I mean, it was Epicurus (~2000 years ago!) who first put this argument forward and I don't think anyone's ever come up with a good answer, so I'm forced to think that the problem is either a) coming up with a satisfactory definition of God, or b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning.
- gnaritas 10y ago> b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning. There are no rational arguments for a belief in God, so this is the answer. All belief in any gods is irrational by nature.
- lomnakkus 10y agoI think I might agree if you changed "belief" to "faith"[1]. "Belief" can be informed by evidence (flawed or not), but "faith" is explicit belief-without-evidence. The latter -- I agree -- is a terrible idea, but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2]. That doesn't mean that I would automatically dismiss them, but I would argue that they perhaps haven't learned enough about how to critically evaluate evidence. EDIT: A mildly interesting observation: There's one kind of evidence that believers use that's actually routinely accepted in a court of law, namely Eyewitness Testimony (e.g. "I saw the Virin Mary!" in the religious context). More interestingly, Eyewitness Testimony has been shown to be incredibly unreliable for finding out what really happened. [1] The distinction is somewhat technical, but it's a Big Deal(TM) in Philosophy. [2] Though, it's probably not the sort of evidence that's accepted by anyone else. (Revelation, that kind of thing.)
- nickff 10y agoAre you trying to pass this atheist passive-aggressiveness off as wit? If so, you should have come up with something more original than this trite phrase.
- azinman2 10y agoI'm so sorry for offending your sensibilities. I'll try to do better next time.
- dang 10y agoYou've broken the HN guidelines twice, first by provoking a tedious religions flamewar and then by being personally uncivil. We ban accounts that do this. Please (re-)read the site guidelines and follow them. That means posting civil, substantive comments, or none at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- dang 10y agoPlease don't post comments like this to HN. It amounts to trolling. Intentionally or not, the effect is the same. Religious flamewars and religious litigation are off topic here. They aren't new, they aren't interesting, and they reliably set a bunch of people off.
- ibspoof 10y agoHe's also kinda a crackpot: http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/09/22/the-strange-story-of-henry-heimlich/ http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/09/22/the-strange-story-of-hen...
- ech 10y agopyrotherapy is a real thing, and has been used very successfully in the treatment of the later stages of syphillis. of course, it only works because syphillis is really temperature sensitive, which isn't the case of the pathogens concerned.
- jmcgough 10y agoreminds me of Linus Pauling's later work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...
- andrewvc 10y agoI'd go a bit further than 'crackpot' in describing someone who literally gave Malaria to people with AIDS on purpose.
- readams 10y agoIt's actually not quite as crazy as it sounds. Malaria was used successfully to treat Neurosyphilis.
- tiplus 10y agoJust in case, here is a video explaining it again [1]. I had to look it up myself. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7CgtIgSyAiU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7CgtIgSyAiU
- Aelinsaar 10y agoFor all of his ups and downs on a personal level, the guy has probably indirectly (and now directly) saved a ton of lives.
- MustardTiger 10y agoNo. There is no evidence to support the technique at all, and it is no longer recommended in most parts of the world.
- anon4this1 10y agoWell, I'm an anaesthetist, and have heard this argument. I personally did a heimlich maneuvere on a hospital inpatient who was blue and choking on a big bit of bread, and the bread came out and he turned pink again. So from my samples size of N=1, it works 100% of the time. I would like to know the high quality randomized controlled trials which show that it doesn't?
- MustardTiger 10y agoJust like Lisa's rock. Nothing works 100% of the time, and obviously they do not use "high quality randomized controlled trials" since killing people is not ethical. Current recommendations are to begin with back blows.
- Aelinsaar 10y agoPlease cite, I can't find anything to support your claim.
- MustardTiger 10y agoYou can't find wikipedia? Here's his son's site talking about how he is a huge fraud: http://www.medfraud.info/ http://www.medfraud.info/
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
- v0x 10y agoLooks like it's the second time he's used the maneuver: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36400365 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36400365
- dang 10y agoWell that surely trumps the local source. We'll change the URL from http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/26/henry-heimlich-finally-uses-famed-maneuver/85003350/ http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/26/henry-heimli.... It would be amusing if there were a long history of 'first times'.
- drumdance 10y agoI like to think the greatest moment of my life was when I performed the heimlich on a colleague on an airplane. It took three tries but it worked. In retrospect I was surprised how calm I was. I remember thinking on the third try, "if this doesn't work, I'm yelling for a flight attendant." What's even crazier is I was sitting in the window seat, she in the middle seat. I'm surprised it worked in such cramped circumstances. And something amusing: the guy in the aisle seat slept through the whole thing.
- hellothere789 10y agoI can imagine his family and friends were tired of him leaping forward to take advantage of the technique at every opportunity... - YOU'RE CHOKING??? -- No, coughing... - YOU'RE CHOKING??? -- NO, Heimlich, I'm holding my breath... I have the hiccups.... - YOU'RE CHOKING??? -- FUCKING HEIMLICH! I'M TRYING TO TAKE A DUMP!!
- MustardTiger 10y agoIt isn't a "life-saving technique", it is bunk: "There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in."
- moonshinefe 10y agoIt isn't though, if you read past the first paragraph in the wikipedia history of the technique. "The European Resuscitation Council and the Mayo Clinic recommend alternating between five back slaps and five abdominal thrusts in cases of severe airway obstructions.[1][2]" I hardly think they'd still recommend the maneuver still if it was "bunk".
- MustardTiger 10y ago>I hardly think they'd still recommend the maneuver still if it was "bunk". The mayo clinic doesn't recommend it any more. And your logic there makes no sense. At what point does "still" matter? It used to be recommended by more people. It has been falling out of favor as more and more organizations stop recommending it as there is no evidence to support it. The fact that a few haven't updated their guidelines yet doesn't make it supported by evidence.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoInteresting, that quote lead me to the article in Cincinatti Magazine (https://books.google.com/books?id=rcMqOFGzb_oC&lpg=PA92&ots=Xlw6axM1lX&dq=There%20was%20never%20any%20science%20here.%20Heimlich%20overpowered%20science%20all%20along&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q=There%20was%20never%20any%20science%20here.%20Heimlich%20overpowered%20science%20all%20along&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=rcMqOFGzb_oC&lpg=PA92&ots=...) which is actually a bit mixed. Reading the article it seems the author admits that it works, and the "new way" starts with back slaps and then goes into using "abdominal thrusts" (aka "The Heimlich maneuver") But between the original published idea and this article really it says more that it might not be the most effective technique, it never says it is "bunk"
- alejohausner 10y agoHeimlich means well, but the popularity of his maneuver is due more to his relentless promotional skills, and not to sound research. If someone is choking, it's best to slap them hard on the back a few times. http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.05.05/heimlich-0501.html http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.05.05/heimlich-05...
- readams 10y agoThat article says nothing about the Heimlich maneuver for choking. Only that you shouldn't use it on a drowning victim. Most sources seem to recommend the Heimlich maneuver for choking victims, possibly in conjunction with blows to the back between the shoulder blades, but only in cases of complete airway obstruction.
- anotherevan 10y agoLast time I did my first aide certificate here in Australia (late 90s), if the back slapping is unsuccessful, the preferred technique was to lay them down on their side, place your hands under their armpit, flat over their ribs and try short, sharp compressions, squeezing the lungs. Because the Heimlich technique is so well known, I remember the instructor citing the above as superior because it was less likely to break ribs or do other internal damage. Caveat: This is in the case of complete obstruction and/or unconsciousness. If it is a partial obstruction, and you can keep the person calm enough to breathe enough, call an ambulance. All first aide is about keeping the person alive long enough for the professionals to take over, not being a hero that solves the problem yourself. Looked up St John's and it looks like the technique has changed since then: [1] This actually sounds harder for effective compressions though, and requires more strength. [1] http://www.stjohnambulance.com.au/docs/posters/ehs_choking_a3.pdf http://www.stjohnambulance.com.au/docs/posters/ehs_choking_a...
- jazoom 10y agoI'm a doctor in Australia. The current recommendation is 5 blows to the back between the scapulae followed by 5 pushes on the sternum. Alternate until they either can breathe again or pass out. Heimlich doesn't feature, but I can't say I wouldn't try it if nothing else was working.