4 ms·

Edit: Unwanted attention

tokai 4y ago
I really lack this angle from their studies. In their later study they conclude that: "Likewise, said Perman, people need to be assured it's OK to touch a woman you don't know if you are helping someone who might otherwise die" But that only holds if the risk of getting in trouble is not real. But they don't spend any energy figuring out if this barrier to CPR is imagined or real.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  These two angles are not mutually exclusive.
  - tokai 4y ago
    You'll have to explain yourself. What is not mutually exclusive?
    - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
      The fact that random bystanders and experienced staff in certain situations both have reservations about giving CPR to women.
- elil17 4y ago
  I would argue that, even if you will be falsely accused of a crime, you have a moral obligation to perform CPR because that accusation is so unlikely to go anywhere. I'm sure people make accusations, but from a Google search I can't find any cases where someone was actually arrested or charged for that. It's hard to imagine police or prosecutors not believing that defense, especially given that there would be medical evidence of cardiac arrest.
  - michaelmcdonald 4y ago
    While it might be the case that it won't go anywhere, as a defendant / accused you still have to deal with possible reputation damage, legal costs, and time loss.
    - elil17 4y ago
      And the other person might have to deal with being dead - totally different magnitude of problem! I understand why people hesitate, but if someone is dying in front of you, I think you have to do something if you can, consequences be damned.
      - blueflow 4y ago
        Dead people can't sue you.
        elil17 4y ago
        Neither can alive people apparently because I have not been able to find a case where someone actually sued the person who performed CPR on them. Edit: It won't let me reply to the link below but that has absolutely nothing to do with gender. That's about injuries sustained while performing CPR and, to quote the article, "You're more likely to get sued if you don't intervene" and "no non-medical person has been successfully sued for providing bystander CPR."
        blitzar 4y ago
        Of the three cases in which defendants were charged with battery assault because they did administer CPR, only one was convicted. And that was because "the patient already had a signed 'Do Not Resuscitate' order and received CPR anyway in their nursing home," But most states fully protect bystanders who sincerely try to help, Murphy stressed. Some states even have "Duty to Act" laws that establish fines specifically for bystanders who are medically trained to provide CPR but choose not to help when an emergency unfolds. (Minnesota, Rhode Island and Vermont are three such examples.) https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20191112/you-wont-get-sued-if-you-do-cpr-review-suggests https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20191112/you-wont-get-s...
roenxi 4y ago
Do you have any interesting statistics or official training related to your experiences, or is it word of mouth & personal anecdotes? I can report finding your comment more interesting than the article. This study seems underexplained and it is hard for me to work out what they actually did and whether the results were because of different symptoms of heart attacks between the genders. There seems to be discussion of hypotheticals and mashing different studies together in ways that aren't justified.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
incone123 4y ago
"you remove all clothing and move jewellery away from the site" As a SAR medic because you're setting up for defibrillation. For the public its fine to do minimal exposure; You can figure out CPR hand position through the patient's shirt.
- closewith 4y ago
  Edit: Unwanted attention
  - throw_a_grenade 4y ago
    I was specifically trained to remove bra, because it restrains chest and breaks ventilation (the air will go to the stomach instead and inflated stomach will block further air from entering the lungs). I can imagine this might be seen as inappropriate for a bystander who doesn't understand how this works, but there's something wrong with the system if that might cause serious complaints against rescuer.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

I really lack this angle from their studies. In their later study they conclude that: "Likewise, said Perman, people need to be assured it's OK to touch a woman you don't know if you are helping someone who might otherwise die" But that only holds if the risk of getting in trouble is not real. But they don't spend any energy figuring out if this barrier to CPR is imagined or real.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
These two angles are not mutually exclusive.
- tokai 4y ago
  You'll have to explain yourself. What is not mutually exclusive?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
    The fact that random bystanders and experienced staff in certain situations both have reservations about giving CPR to women.
elil17 4y ago
I would argue that, even if you will be falsely accused of a crime, you have a moral obligation to perform CPR because that accusation is so unlikely to go anywhere. I'm sure people make accusations, but from a Google search I can't find any cases where someone was actually arrested or charged for that. It's hard to imagine police or prosecutors not believing that defense, especially given that there would be medical evidence of cardiac arrest.
- michaelmcdonald 4y ago
  While it might be the case that it won't go anywhere, as a defendant / accused you still have to deal with possible reputation damage, legal costs, and time loss.
  - elil17 4y ago
    And the other person might have to deal with being dead - totally different magnitude of problem! I understand why people hesitate, but if someone is dying in front of you, I think you have to do something if you can, consequences be damned.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      Dead people can't sue you.
      - elil17 4y ago
        Neither can alive people apparently because I have not been able to find a case where someone actually sued the person who performed CPR on them. Edit: It won't let me reply to the link below but that has absolutely nothing to do with gender. That's about injuries sustained while performing CPR and, to quote the article, "You're more likely to get sued if you don't intervene" and "no non-medical person has been successfully sued for providing bystander CPR."
        blitzar 4y ago
        Of the three cases in which defendants were charged with battery assault because they did administer CPR, only one was convicted. And that was because "the patient already had a signed 'Do Not Resuscitate' order and received CPR anyway in their nursing home," But most states fully protect bystanders who sincerely try to help, Murphy stressed. Some states even have "Duty to Act" laws that establish fines specifically for bystanders who are medically trained to provide CPR but choose not to help when an emergency unfolds. (Minnesota, Rhode Island and Vermont are three such examples.) https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20191112/you-wont-get-sued-if-you-do-cpr-review-suggests https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/news/20191112/you-wont-get-s...

roenxi 4y ago

Do you have any interesting statistics or official training related to your experiences, or is it word of mouth & personal anecdotes? I can report finding your comment more interesting than the article. This study seems underexplained and it is hard for me to work out what they actually did and whether the results were because of different symptoms of heart attacks between the genders. There seems to be discussion of hypotheticals and mashing different studies together in ways that aren't justified.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

incone123 4y ago

"you remove all clothing and move jewellery away from the site" As a SAR medic because you're setting up for defibrillation. For the public its fine to do minimal exposure; You can figure out CPR hand position through the patient's shirt.

closewith 4y ago
Edit: Unwanted attention
- throw_a_grenade 4y ago
  I was specifically trained to remove bra, because it restrains chest and breaks ventilation (the air will go to the stomach instead and inflated stomach will block further air from entering the lungs). I can imagine this might be seen as inappropriate for a bystander who doesn't understand how this works, but there's something wrong with the system if that might cause serious complaints against rescuer.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]