4 ms·
OK, you're sexist. As a female ex-lifesaver, I agree wholeheartedly with the instructor referenced in the op. There are definately techniques that don't invol
by demallien 16y ago
OK, you're sexist.
As a female ex-lifesaver, I agree wholeheartedly with the instructor referenced in the op. There are definately techniques that don't involve force, and which work. For example one thign that you are taught is that a drowning person is never going to reach down into the water to grab you. So one technique we learned was to approach from below. Lift the person up from just below the waist (they're always in a rigid vertical body position when drowning). This way your arms and legs aren't within reach. Once the person is able to get a few deep breaths of air, they stop panicking, and you can release. Back off, come up for air yourself, and just keep repeating until they're calm enough to approach from the surface.
It's not easy though - it requires that you have a decent capacity for swimming submerged yourself, and if the person does manage to grab you with their legs or whatever, or if you make a mistake and don't back off far enough when coming up for air yourself, you can get into trouble, which is why you need to be trained before trying it.
As a lifesaver you normally have a second lifesaver with you when effecting a rescue - that person's job is to talk to the drowning person when they are being held up, telling them to relax, lie on their back etc etc. But if you don't have that second person, you just have to keep holding them up until they calm down.
The whole point of this type of technique is that it never puts the rescuer in a battle of strength with the rescuee - at any point you can get them to let go by submerging yourself, but just to be sure you've positioned yourself in a place where they aren't even likely to try to grab you, and if they do, they can't get at your arms/legs, which are well below the surface.
At any rate, getting back to your comment - the teacher's instruction had nothing with wishful thinking, and everything to do with knowledge of the most effective means of rescue - that you misinterpreted it as wishful thinking reveals that you are indeed sexist.
- sliverstorm 16y ago> It's not easy though - it requires that you have a decent capacity for swimming submerged yourself, and if the person does manage to grab you with their legs or whatever, or if you make a mistake and don't back off far enough when coming up for air yourself, you can get into trouble, which is why you need to be trained before trying it. It sounds a lot more risky than approaching from behind and putting them in a lock. How is greater risk = more effective?
- demallien 16y ago"putting them in a lock" is incredibly risky. It requires you to be strong enough to do it - if you misjudge the relative strength of the panicking person compared to yourself, they're going to latch on to you, and you may not be able to free yourself,and now you're both in trouble. The technique I described requires no such guesswork. If you do it properly (something that can be learned), you won't get into trouble, regardless of the relative strength of the two parties. The security of the rescuer is paramount in this situation. Why take the risk of misjudging the strength of the rescuee, when you can avoid having to guess? You're running into the Dunning-Kruger effect here - you don't know what you don't know. Believe me, as someone that has been extensively trained in lifesaving, there are techniques that are safe and effective, and these techniques never rely on force. How could it be otherwise - we'd be condemning strong people to just die - "Jeez, sorry mate, I see you work out in a gym, and are probably stronger than every lifesaver on the beach, so I guess it's just bad luck for you!".