3 ms·

Trying to help is better than the "I can't help; not my job" attitude you seem to be proposing. "Due to the risk of crush syndrome, current recommendation to l

Trying to help is better than the "I can't help; not my job" attitude you seem to be proposing. "Due to the risk of crush syndrome, current recommendation to lay first-aiders (in the UK) is to not release victims of crush injury who have been trapped for more than 15 minutes." So crush syndrome is not relevant here. There's a reason why it isn't well known - because the naturally obvious thing to do is the right thing to do here (after first stopping the bus and calling an ambulance)

blowski 11y ago
Is there any data about how many people suffer from "crush syndrome" versus the "bystander effect"? I'd guess the latter causes more suffering. I saw a man die, so did a first aid course. The tutor was unequivocal that trying to help is pretty much always better than not trying to help.
- Angostura 11y ago
  Sounds like a short course.
sgentle 11y ago
But that's exactly my point. In some situations, trying to help when you don't know what you're doing can make a situation worse. There are many examples where the obvious thing to do is not the right thing to do, from magnesium fires to drinking lots of water during marathons. I don't mean to advocate "I can't help" as an attitude, rather I think it's important to consider whether what you're doing is, in fact, helping. The classic examples of the bystander effect involve unambiguously helpful actions, like calling the police when you hear screaming. This is a little bit different. An ambulance had already been called, the situation was relatively stable, and I've always heard that unless you know what you're doing it's best to wait for the professionals. Regardless, my point isn't that the people there did the wrong thing. I don't have the medical experience to know (nor, I suspect, do you). Even if I did, they were there, I wasn't, they had a short time to make the decision, and perhaps there are other facts not available to us. My issue is that the retelling of the story as "kind-hearted people triumph over the bystander effect" is incomplete without knowing the actual consequences. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps it'll be "mob of impatient amateurs exacerbates trapped man's injuries in rescue attempt". I know it feels good as written, and it is heartwarming that so many people wanted to help, but I think it's irresponsible to encourage behaviour in that kind of situation that might be medically harmful.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  There are a small number of things you can do that might seem sensible but would make a situation worse. You learn those things in the right context. Anyone who has a minimal amount of marathon training should know about hyponatremia; anyone who works with magnesium should know to put it out with sand; many people know that you shouldn't pull out the knife. In a group of N people in London, there are first aiders and medical professionals present who contextually know this stuff. On the balance of probability, I guarantee you there was more than 1 NHS worker pushing that bus.

blowski 11y ago

Is there any data about how many people suffer from "crush syndrome" versus the "bystander effect"? I'd guess the latter causes more suffering. I saw a man die, so did a first aid course. The tutor was unequivocal that trying to help is pretty much always better than not trying to help.

Angostura 11y ago
Sounds like a short course.

sgentle 11y ago

But that's exactly my point. In some situations, trying to help when you don't know what you're doing can make a situation worse. There are many examples where the obvious thing to do is not the right thing to do, from magnesium fires to drinking lots of water during marathons. I don't mean to advocate "I can't help" as an attitude, rather I think it's important to consider whether what you're doing is, in fact, helping. The classic examples of the bystander effect involve unambiguously helpful actions, like calling the police when you hear screaming. This is a little bit different. An ambulance had already been called, the situation was relatively stable, and I've always heard that unless you know what you're doing it's best to wait for the professionals. Regardless, my point isn't that the people there did the wrong thing. I don't have the medical experience to know (nor, I suspect, do you). Even if I did, they were there, I wasn't, they had a short time to make the decision, and perhaps there are other facts not available to us. My issue is that the retelling of the story as "kind-hearted people triumph over the bystander effect" is incomplete without knowing the actual consequences. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps it'll be "mob of impatient amateurs exacerbates trapped man's injuries in rescue attempt". I know it feels good as written, and it is heartwarming that so many people wanted to help, but I think it's irresponsible to encourage behaviour in that kind of situation that might be medically harmful.

learnstats2 11y ago
There are a small number of things you can do that might seem sensible but would make a situation worse. You learn those things in the right context. Anyone who has a minimal amount of marathon training should know about hyponatremia; anyone who works with magnesium should know to put it out with sand; many people know that you shouldn't pull out the knife. In a group of N people in London, there are first aiders and medical professionals present who contextually know this stuff. On the balance of probability, I guarantee you there was more than 1 NHS worker pushing that bus.