One time, I put my hand out to stop a kid from running into the street.
Most people were like "Woah that kid almost died." But one Karen looking woman had a "How dare you touch that child" look.
I'm not going to stop saving kids who run into the street. But it did make me question when to involve myself or not. And I can see a lot of people hesitating because some fuckface has something stupid to say.
Yep. People have strange selective views on things.
I was standing with the car at the crossing where it enters the main road. A kid came racing down the bike path from the local primary school on his scooter and tried to get around my car without wasting speed, i.e. slowing down. Physics said: "NO" in no uncertain terms, and the kid kissed the road in front of my car. I got out to help, but he already got up, probably more annoyed about loosing speed than anything else, answered negative on my inquiry if he was hurt or needed help, and was off like lighting.
Two days later, the police was at my door, responding to a neighbors claim that I had run over a kid that day...
I could imagine that neighbour just heard some noise, looked outside, and then just concluded, you must've hit that child, from what the aftermath looked like...
A man stopped my son with his hand from crossing at the signal because a car didn’t see him and could have mowed him down. I think a lot about how that could have gone badly if the man had second guessed himself for even a moment. Legally and socially, we need to be on the side of anyone who makes a split second decision to help in a crisis.
Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.
Nah man. I won't go near kids. Not my problem... If they die because of stupidity... it's just thinning the heard.
You inferred one look from a stranger experiencing a traumatic event, that apparently wasn't reinforced by conversation with her after the fact!? I don't think you should modify anything about your instincts or responses...
You psychoanalyzed him from one comment on an Internet forum without a single reply or anything?
See how that sounds?
Uh, no? No one's analyzing here! I basically told them to trust their instincts, rather than defer to the minority opinion of "all men are pedophiles" (based on their interpretation of the Karen's response). Same advice I would give male lifeguards who would hesitate in possibly saving a life because maybe one person would be hyper-sensitive to any contact. Do what's good and true and right immediately, and deal with haters later...
Yea, guess not.
👏🏼
Nah, cause those haters could put my ass in jail.
So no, I will assess every situation. I ain't touching a woman who's down.
Thank the assholes of the world for that... And also the coworker who flirted with me, and when I didn't flirt with her, she accused me of sexual harassment and I got fired - 30 years ago.
The shit is real, (shitty) women have made the bed, they can lie in it.
Oh boy....
All it takes is one person to accuse you for your life to be ruined. Such is the reality of being a man.
Accusations ruin plenty of people’s lives, regardless of gender.
Men's more than women's, tbh. Accusations of SA never go away, even if you're proven innocent.
Source for accusations against men leading to quantifiably worse outcomes than accusations against women or NB people? I haven’t seen the research that backs up your assertion.
Don't you know? Every woman who is middle aged and doesn't give an appreciating look all the time I want is a misandrist Karen.
And if someone dies, it's her and other women's fault.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn't given consent.
One of the few cases where consent of anything can be assumed is lifesaving of a person unable to respond. One of the first steps of cpr is to seek a response to ensure that the person is unconscious before then confirming no pulse.
But yeah I get why it’s awkward
Yeah but the mob around me watching me touch her breasts might not know that.
I'm not CPR certified or anything, but I think if you're just grabbing titties you're probably doing it wrong.
For sure! But I didn’t say you WERE grabbing titties, just that you’re perceived to be.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt…
Can you see that being perceived poorly?
Unlikely that someone holding a defibrillator next to someone passed out on the ground is going to be perceived poorly.
Unfortunately in a panic scenario like that, sometimes people don’t see things as clearly as they might normally.
And people aren’t great on a normal day either.
Not everyone is going to have access to a defibrillator.
Fortunately they are cheap and easy to use correctly (and nearly impossible to use wrong), as such they are all over. If you are in a public place I'd be surprised if you didn't have ready access to a defibrillator in the US, though you may not realize where it is.
You would think so, right? But the reality is that men are always assumed to have the worst intentions. Especially in hindsight. i.e. "he didn't need to do that right? he must be trying to cop a feel".
Same reason men aren't usually kindergarten teachers, because they're immediately assumed to be pedos.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt
You also need to make sure their bra doesn't have an underwire and remove it if there is.
Even though you're joking I wouldn't be surprised if someone did react like that. "Uhhmmmm, that's no CPR, you're just fondling her! I know because I went to CPR training."
The instructors advise you to speak aloud your actions as you do them. Also helps if you have already levelled out instructions to the rent a crowd to perform specific tasks like send for help and get the defib and you three who said yes to cpr training let's line up and take turns doing cpr.
...of course, the training to be comfortable giving these instructions is not really done.
Absolutely!
And what if you’re outside a bar and everyone is drunk?
Unfortunately life doesn’t provide ideal scenarios, not to mention that under the duress of what you’re doing you may forget steps.
I’m not saying that fondling an unconscious person is the same as cpr, but that perceptions are funny things.
Then put whichever Karen looks fiercest in charge of compressions. Either she'll get in there and do them, or she'll demur, in which case you say you will and she should watch so she can start when you get tired. That makes her your witness. Don't forget to tell someone else to call emergency services.
By the time you try to convince any Karen to do anything, the person would have died.
Good point. On the other hand if you tell her to start, and when she starts to object you say fine I'll do them until i get too tired, she'll feel like she won the argument which is a step in the right direction.
Wise.
If you’re touching her tits, you’re not giving proper CPR. Proper CPR happens just below the sternum. That’s well below any kind of bra band. If her tits are that low, she’s either an EE cup or 80 years old.
Huh, I looked it up and checked out the instructions and diagrams of several websites. Every one of them said to place your hands on the upper part of the chest and every image showed their hands between the nipples.
I heard the saying: if you didn't break a rib you didn't do CPR right. So I'm pretty sure it's not beneath the sternum
Proper CPR happens just below the sternum.
Wouldn’t that be the hemlich?
You need to compress the chest, so pressure needs to go on the sternum. If you're pressing below it, the only thing you're compressing is their intestines, which is not gonna help anyone
Wouldn't that break the xyphoid process? Below that is where you Heimlich. Above, on the strong center bone, is where you do chest compression. Also, as a haver of boobs, I can vouch that they will have enough space between them when she's flat on her back and braless that you can put your locked fists between them on that bone and shove the heel of your hand towards the floor.
Okay but we’ve already established that it’s not about what you ARE doing, but what people think you’re doing.
Understandable, but you only need to do it if there is no pulse. If you are doing chest compressions to save their life, I am sure the majority would be quite happy with not dying. You don't need to take off their top, and you are pressing on their sternum rather than their breasts. You can't really mistake CPR for anything else if you are doing it correctly.
I know, but I was just assuming chest compressions, no other tools. If you're strapping electrodes to an unconscious person, and the machine is talking you through the CPR steps, it's even less likely to be assumed to be anything than what it is.
You would think that, but the reality is different.
You can’t, that doesn’t mean that some white knight in the crowd doesn’t.
While I agree the risk is low, it’s not zero.
Youre afraid to save a persons life because there is a near zero chance that a very unlikely hypothetical situation may occur? Youre okay with letting someone die because you might get verbally chided, or worse, have someone misunderstand and be slightly rough with you? Wow.
I honestly can't imagine being this scared of the world.
You can’t say “near zero” you don’t have the numbers.
It depends entirely on circumstance.
And you know that.
But it’s wonderful that you want to judge me as a keyboard warrior. I applaud how tough you are. Have a nice day.
Please, give me any numbers that show people have been harassed, threatened or injured while performing CPR on a women.
You consider it an unlikely but possible threat. I would like to see what data informs that threat to you.
I expect its none, and instead you just want to feel persecuted because "women standing up for themselves in modern society makes me scared, so im going to pretend thats why i wont help a women that's dying."
Again, fear driven and sad.
You're the one who claimed near zero, onus is on you.
We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
Will you do the same? Or will you continue to ask me for information to back up your arguments?
You made the suggestion that it was “near zero” and now you’re asking me for proof that it isn’t near zero.
Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is "I can't find any proof there is danger here?"
The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
You made a claim:
"this action has risk."
You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
Now you're asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
Thats your gotcha argument? "I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn't exist, so therefore it does exist?"
Is this your first day on the internet?
Best rebuttal is calling people cowards eh?
You win, but I wish you would reconsider that I may have a point despite your distaste for it.
Have a nice day.
And if someone gets the wrong perception so what? And what of the other x+ people seeing you do the right thing?
I'd 100% cunt punt someone trying to attack someone performing life saving procedures on someone in crisis
This isn't about giving lifesaving procedures, this is days latter when someone realizes what happens. There is plenty or evidence that 'bad touch' happened, and so lacking good Samaritan laws the law was violated and that is all we need to arrest someone. This type of harassment has happened, but I have no idea how often it does .
It's pretty wild that you're getting on someone's case about lacking evidence when you've utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I know paramedics who got formal complaints about this. Their boss ignored as the paramedics were acting as trained.
I am a paramedic, these comments have lost me. At least in the United States there is a 0% chance anything will happen if someone does CPR on another while acting in good faith.
This does exclude some some uncomfortable situations where family is screaming at me that I’m not doing enough or that I need to help them and people have appeared to be close to getting violent but I’ve never been attacked, and if someone is threatening another individual that is trying to help, leave. We can’t help other people if we become another person who needs help.
But I’ve done CPR on a lot of people, it’s violent. No one around will ever have to wonder what is being done, it is very clear and I don’t believe it is possible to confuse with touching an unconscious person inappropriately. Again, these comments have lost me. Maybe if some of these people would see a resuscitation attempt, they’d probably realize once the patient is spitting up blood from how violently their chest is being pushed on, there is no way to misinterpret CPR for groping.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
But you’re not gonna listen to that either.
😉 have a nice day.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
Suddenly trying to substitute "perceived risk" for "real risk" is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn't at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
You've been making the claim in almost every comment that there's a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You've provided no evidence for that risk. You've admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it's a real risk. You don't just get to say, "Well neither of us know for sure therefore you must accept my claim". That's ridiculous.
Verbally chided? Getting sued for SA and getting your life ruined doesn't really seem like "verbally chided". Yeah, I'd probably let people die because my life is more important.
Yes, I am.
I'm not risking jail over this crap. Lost a job over it once, so I have personal, first-hand experience with the bullshit.
CPR does not save lives. It preserves a dead body until an AED or ambulance can bring it back to life. You need to remove her shirt and often bra (if there is a wire it must go, otherwise only if in the way) to use an AED so if some item of clothing is in the way don't worry about removing it.
Note that the above is generic CPR training that doesn't respect local laws which can say something different.
AED's will not help someone whose heart is stopped (i.e. no pulse). They are used to shock the heart into restoring its normal rhythm. It will not start a heart that has stopped beating.
Yeahhhh... and it makes me glad that the 'A' part in AED exists, because there are apparently a not insignificant number of people who have gotten their CPR training from TV.
CPR absolutely does save lives. The success rate outside hospitals is around 10%. That's thousands of lives saved every year.
Please do not say CPR does not save lives, it 100% does. And in the United States our Good Samaritan laws protect anyone from liability if they are acting in good faith trying to help someone.
I’m a paramedic in the United States, hold a certification as a flight medic, nothing I can bring, in a helicopter or an ambulance will do anything for anyone if high quality CPR isn’t performed.
To break things down, yes in adults early defibrillation does make a huge difference but in kids it is literally high quality CPR that saves them. If you’d like I’d be happy to break down the details of resuscitation, but without CPR until I can get there and attempt resuscitation, then no matter how much I throw at someone to try to get their heart beating again, they’ll still be brain dead.
My CPR instructors put it the way I wrote it to encourage us to spend more effort on getting the AED and paramedics there fast. If you do CPR before the AED/paramedics is on the way you are wasting time, but getting those has been started CPR is important. However this is clearly semantics, I think we are all in agreement that CPR is important.
Not all states have "good Samaritan" laws. Most do, but if you live in the exception you might suffer harassment after doing CPR, including go to court - odds are the court will throw the case out, but it will still be annoying to do the right thing in those states. Though even lacking such laws, the odds that anything will happen are low.
Also not everyone lives in America. In more conservative places in Asia, touching a random woman (even if she is unconscious) and clearly in need of help is really asking to be judged.
And if a video with accusatory narration is posted on tiktok or something, you're basically done for. Especially in a small town or country. You're basically doxxed and won't be easily hired for work because background checks are easily done, and the company (basically the HR) isn't going to risk the bad rep of hiring a potential molester, rapist, etc even if it's just an accusation by random people.
And I agree some of this is just getting into semantics but yes get an AED if one is available, early defibrillation is without a doubt the best way to increase survival rates also activate emergency services as soon as possible there are things we carry that can help if the patient is receiving adequate CPR prior to our arrival, those steps are crucial. But ensure that you minimize any time spent not provided high quality CPR. Without blood flowing to the patients brain, it starts to die. Once the brain is dead there is nothing in modern medicine that can revive it.
I don’t have an argument if someone is concerned about consequences for helping another person. I do what I do so I can sleep at night knowing I did what I believed was best and I did it to the best of my abilities. If I have to go to court then so be it, the bonus for me going to court is at least I’ll get to meet someone I’ve helped successfully resuscitate, that alone would make going to court worth it, independent of any verdict that is rendered. But that’s just me, I’ve had to pronounce a lot of people. I’ve had one or two go into cardiac arrest in front of my and then after treating them they talked to me during the ride to the hospital and I know I’ve had a handful of people that made a full and complete neurological recovery, but I’ve never gotten to meet any of them, which is also fine, but it would be neat to get to talk to one of them and hear their side of the experience.
I'm pretty sure most places in the states have laws protecting people but there have been people who were sued for giving cpr to someone who wasn't very grateful.
If you have cpr or aed training....and a person is unconscious, consent is implied. Especially if you follow training. You felt for a pulse and/or they were not breathing, you will not get sued in this country. If someone manages to get it to court, they will lose.
I am a certified CPR and AED , a registered WFR and just had a training class on the matter. As long as you follow proper protocol you are ok. And I'd like to add, as a man, yeah, I'd be nervous also exposing a womans chest in a crowd, people are stupid, but you can probably save a life.
If you're doing CPR they're effectively dead before you start. If you're the only one there, no witnesses unless you manage to save her. If you're not alone, you should tell them you're going to start CPR and order them to call 911 or 999 or whatever. Or volunteer to call while they start compressions. Then you can take over/take turns and vouch for each 's intentions.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a person who hasn’t given consent.
Someone who has no heartbeat automaticlly has given consent to receive CPR.
Not necessarily. Being unable to give consent doesn't mean you consent. Also being dead doesn't mean you consent either.
Bystander: She's apneic and has no pulse! I'm beginning CPR!
Commences compressions
Patient: Uh actually I have a boyfriend
"I was trying to save your life."
"Ugh are you still talking to me?"
I think the average person can tell what's going on if they see someone prone on the ground and someone doing chest compressions.
I used to think the same. Then trump happened.
You would think that, right? But no. If you're a guy, you automatically think of all the ways you can get accused of SA, even when you're genuinely trying to help. So most guys just don't. It's not worth the risk.
What country's this? Shithole as it is in other ways, in the UK you can't be prosecuted or sued for basically anything if you're resuscitating someone.
I would love to live in that universe of yours were the average person is well informed and rational.
Conversely, we had a call for a woman passed out in a car called in by a bystander. We arrived and she was still seated in the car, with a man doing one-armed compressions on her chest. It looked bad ... until we got closer and saw she was both awake and speaking normally to her "savior", and his CPR was on the level of "movie CPR".
We figured he would stop on his own once he realized she was awake: he didn't. We figured she would in some way indicated he needed to stop, or at least react adversely in any way to the man pushing (weakly) on her chest ... she didn't. We had to tell him to stop.
To his credit I think he just saw someone down and got tunnel vision. Based on his face the realization of how absurd it was hit a few seconds later.
Super facts
Some US states do not have Good Samaritan laws. This means that you could save someone's life, they could sue you, and they could win. It's pretty fucked up.
This sounded strange to me, so I looked it up. This Wikipedia article suggests all US states have a good samaritan law, and some extend that further by requiring bystanders to reasonably provide assistance. However, who is liable and to what extent appears to vary. Additionally, interactions with other state laws could complicate things.
All that said, I admittedly don't know much about good samaritan laws beyond this article.
Some of those laws are more recent, I believe. I got CPR certified in the 90s and the police officer instructing the course did indeed warn us to be careful about saving people as we could possibly get sued.
If I had to guess, it was a symptom of the sue-everyone-for-everything craze in those days, crossed with state laws that didn’t yet provide explicit protections for good samaritans because you generally don’t try to harm someone who went out of their way to save your life.
FYI if you look at the actual numbers, that frivolous lawsuit situation was manufactured by the media. Lawsuits have been in near continuous decline since that narrative started.
I'm currently certified and we are told that unconscious means consent and once you determine they're not breathing (only criteria) then you perform cpr. I've been certified for over 7 years as a dispatcher and we often provide these exact instructions. Since we deal with the whole of the US we use national protocols which are valid throughout the country (emd epd protocols) and unless you know for SURE they are breathing you perform CPR every time. Doesn't matter if they have a DNR. Unless of course they just had a seizure then you wait. But if you can't confirm breathing or you say they're snoring we are going straight to chest compressions.
I've been trained by some of the most knowledgeable people who I was lucky to have the privilege to learn from. This training has served me very well.
The course I took this summer gave similar guidance, and dispelled any worries about getting sued for helping.
Interestingly though, the instructor said we should not provide breaths mouth to mouth without a guard if we suspect drug use, or even just don’t know the person. Apparently fentanyl has changed that landscape.
Doesn’t matter if they have a DNR.
Uhhh, what's the point of a DNR then? Let me die if I want to, ffs.
DNR is for the hospital staff who are legally trained and have time to figure out if it is valid. When seconds count nobody has time to check for fraudulent DNR tags.
Someone calling 911 for a person with a DNR isn't going to be a good source of information on said DNR. A dispatcher isn't going to attempt to verify the DNR is valid through the phone with someone that's panicked, so "just do CPR" is the safe course of action.
If you get a DNR it needs to explained to your family what it means so they at least know what to do. And even if they freak out EMS/a nurse/etc will see the DNR and not continue resuscitation.
It's fully possible that the cop instructing the course didn't know the law at all, especially a federal law.
Do you have expiring CPR qualifications, or are they valid for life?
CPR qualifications expire, but they don’t “mean” anything legally. They’ll get your company an insurance discount if enough employees are certified. But that’s pretty much it. If you know how to do CPR, it’s not going to change too much from year to year. The compressions/breaths count may change, but a 911 operator will know the updated counts anyways, and you should already have them on speakerphone next to you if you’re doing CPR.
Basically, don’t let an out-of-date CPR certification stop you from providing first aid. Because as long as you give a reasonable best effort, Good Samaritan laws will protect you regardless of what date is written on a CPR certificate.
Oh yeah, I'm from Australia so I was just wondering what the situation in the States is.
I needed to be certified because we provide cpr instructions to callers. We must do our best to convince callers to provide CPR when necessary and we need to know what we are doing and not just know how to read them the instructions in case they're in an unusual position or situation.
I don’t recall specifically, but it was a requirement for a job with the city and taught by the police and county EMTs, so I’d guess the more formal Red Cross one. I didn’t keep it up after I left that job so I’m sure if there was an expiration date, it passed long ago.
I did another one this summer and it expires in two years.
Huh Wisconsin is a duty to rescue state
“I didn’t see anything.”
That does seem to be the prevailing attitude in Wisconsin
There’s no state that requires you to do more than a 911 call to report the emergency.
That depends. If you are a professional you may be required to do more. Professional includes being on the office emergency team.
This is for the US, other places may have differing laws, and I might be mistaken- and if so, please drop the relevant law. However, generally, the duty of rescue/care only comes from one of three sources:
one caused the situation. If you hit a pedestrian while driving, you're obligated to stop and provide reasonable care (which at a minimum means calling 911.)
one has a special relationship. parents are obligated to provide care for their child. Cops and corrections officers are obligated to provide care for those in their custody. (doctor-client may get involved here.)
you've already started providing care. once you start actually providing care or aid, you can't stop.
a statute creates such. This would be the bystander laws- none of them require more than calling 911. there's only about ten states with them.
(to my knowledge,) no state has any legal obligation to provide rescue or emergency care. Doctors and nurses may have ethical duties, but that's between you and where ever you get your ethics from. not saying you shouldn't... but the obligation isn't from a legal standpoint. The purpose of GS laws aren't to force a person to provide care- they were originally to protect doctors and nurses from medical malpractice lawsuits for trying to do a good thing. Theyv'e subsequently expaned to the general public. The reason those protections are necessary is that while not on-duty, the doctor isn't generally being covered by their malpractice insurance- they would be personally liable, and lawsuits are expensive- even if you loose.
And no, office emergency teams do not qualify as medical professionals*. They're generally not medically licensed, generally lack advanced training, generally, their roll as an ERT-type is secondary to other job tasks, and generally are only obligated to act by their contract with their employers- not the law. Further, there is no legal obligation, even for medical professionals when off duty. Licensing bodies, employers and such like may impose ethical obligations to maintain their professional licensing, but those are not criminal law, and the consequences are not enforced by the state or federal legal code.
*excepting people like school nurses, or doctors/nurses in prisons or whatever, who do happen to be licensed as a matter of their job title
It was 20 years ago, but then my training made sure to make it clear I was obliged to provide aid in the state I was in. I have no idea what the laws are.
We need to ask Jackie Chiles.
Every state has something.
But that only provides legal protection from lawsuits after the fact; generally, they require that you act in a reason way, in the scope of your training (or under direction of say 911 dispatch,)
Some will also mandate that you call 911 immediately- though no state requires more than that
My understanding of it is that CPR has a lot of negative side effects that we're usually not told about or aware of, like cracking or breaking a rib during compressions.
Not that this is in any way good, but I think some have successfully sued their saviors due to complications from CPR.
I think a law should be passed that says you can't sue someone for complications of saving your life, but, you know...
@OceanSoap@alienanimals Sounds like it’s time to push for Good Samaritan laws in every state. We have one in California. And yes, there can be side effects, but these aren’t limited to GSs. Medical personnel can inflict them as well (damage with intubation comes to mind), and if the injuries are consistent with life saving measures, they are protected. Why shouldn’t GSs also be covered?
Throw in that CPR is effective in 10% of situations and maybe there are reasons why people don't act. 10% is wayyy better than 0% so it is always worth trying.
I'm cpr certified and was told this during training. Maybe it's not general population knowledge though.
Can I get some qualifications so I can send them a bill, if this happens?
At least here, the good Samaritan law specifically excepts people that are receiving compensation for it.
I live in a very strict and conservative country and once a young girl passed out in front of everyone. Her sister was panicking screaming at her to try to breath. I'm usually a savior vigilante type of guy whenever and wherever the situation but sadly at that time I was wearing shorts. So my immediate reaction was to nope out and pretend I didn't see anything. They had to bring another woman who was working close by to do CPR and resuscitate her. The girl then survived obviously. I later had feelings of guilt that I did not step in to help, but in the same time I could've been jailed for touching her and worse get beaten by everyone there. what an awful dilemma ...
Just take the shorts off before helping
Was it illegal there to touch a woman while wearing shorts?
I believe it's more the fear of looking informal or unprofessional. Without more formal clothes, he was afraid of looking like a random chancer copping a feel instead of someone trying to save a life. Pretty silly in retrospect but definitely a possible fear in the moment.
I don't know why but my brain went the direction of "it's harder to hide a random boner in shorts" but don't ask me why my brain is fucked that way.
It's not you. Saying 'wearing shorts' is why you didn't give CPR is fucking stupid.
He said he could have been jailed or beaten for touching her. The shorts probably just made the situation worse.
In order to use a defibrillator, you have to remove everything from a person's chest. This includes the bra and to even shave chest hair to be able to apply the pads correctly.
I've always thought that it would be troublesome for a man to have to apply a defibrillator to a woman if someone assumes foul play because of their own issues.
Life over dignity in that situation, everyone else be damned.
If I saw someone with a defibrillator ripping the clothes off an unconscious woman, I don't think I would suspect foul play.
You might not, but you gotta remember that the public is also filled with idiots
While my cousin's neighbor is fighting a law suit because, a woman (cousin's neighbor) used defibrillator on another woman(when her heart stopped) , and other woman is now suing the neighbor for some minor marks from defibrillator. Mostly neighbor will win the case, but she has to appear in court now. Makes me feel so angry and i don't even know the neighbor lady.
in these cases sometimes the insurance makes you sue even if you don't want to because otherwise they won't pay for any of the debt
My colleague has a situation where he's being sued by his neighbor for minor burns after a firework accident a few years ago 4th of July. The neighbor doesn't want to sue him but has no choice to get the medical services paid for.
That is so ridiculous...
I wonder if judges could be persuaded to levy punitive damages against the insurance company for this kind of thing. "Your honor, we're only wasting your time with this because the insurance company is making us sue. Could you confiscate a few hundred million dollars from them for this worthless harassment?"
At least in America, all the judges are either in the pocket of the businesses or have their hands tied by laws passed by legislators who are in the pocket of businesses. Fuck them businesses.
The ultimate goal with insurance companies is to have you give them money and they never have to give you anything in return. If they can get you to sue the other person, the insurance company doesn't have to pay. To them it's a win-win.
Weakly regulated insurance is a scam
And you have to remember that there's a difference between what some random idiot on the street thinks and what someone can actually be prosecuted for.
Jesus Christ, do the fucking CPR
Surely there are good Samaritan laws even in the US?
There are, but remember that defenses come into play after being sued. So you can still go through the mental nightmare (because let's be real, a rich person isn't going to be doing CPR, and certainly isn't going to care about being sued, so only your typical person who could lose everything in this scenario) of being a defendant in a lawsuit until the judge agrees to toss it or you go to court and are found not liable.
The public scrutiny and the mark on your record does not go away even if you're found not liable. Once you are even accused of anything like this, it's there forever. People will think you got off on a "technicality".
If you're a man facing this, your life is ruined. May as well move away and never come back.
It's not just about being prosecuted, but publicly judged and shamed for.
Never said I wouldn't do the CPR. Only pointing out that in an emergency situation that people are fucking stupid and that a random idiot could easily interfere violently with what they think might be sexual assault
I agree do the CPR but my fear would be getting kicked in the head not sued
It does not have to be life over dignity. There can be a middle ground they could at least provide a cover while doing their thing. I know a teen girl who changed school, did therapy and tried to sue because she once had a seizure and they stripped her naked in front everyone to save her. Her "friends" took video of her and spread it all over their school. As awful as it sounds I'm not making this up.
Fuck the other kids for taking and sharing videos, people suck.
Yup, and that's exactly why men don't help. They tried to save her, but got sued. It's really not worth it.
I'd expect the people who shared footage to be sued, not the first responders.
Why does almost no one clear the area in these posted experiences? That was covered in my (very) basic first aid training. It was emphasized, and it came with a heavy reminder that patient care should be a very high priority. I'm honestly just suprised to read all of these.
Y'all need better trainers and better Good Samaritan laws to protect you. What a world where someone just dies when they could have been saved by someone who was already nearby. Society sucks. Neither "angle" is great.
Yup, society sucks. It's probably selfish of me, but I ain't saving someone when it's possible that I get accused of SA. It's just not worth it. The hassle and the possiblilty of being labelled could affect my future and jobs.
I just did red cross CPR and AED training last week, and the materials said the clothes all need to come off (or pulled up or whatever - off the chest) but chest hair doesn't need to be shaved. Presumably the instructions change periodically.
Its probably much better to have a shaved chest, but lets be realistic. In a situation where CPR and an AED are being used, 1. you probably arent going to have a razor handy 2. the sub-optimal contact with the skin is the least of you (or the patient's) worries.
I took a course a couple of years agao and I believe they said the AEDs come with a razor
Can confirm. Almost all defibrillators come with a pack of additional supplies - including a dry razor
They also teach now to use the provided additional set of pads to basically wax the chest.
It's only an issue on very hairy chests -- i.e. full "bearskin rug" where you need to place the pads. There are patients that have so much hair the pads aren't even touching skin.
In which case you absolutely need to remove the hair. A slightly delayed initial defibrillation is better than multiple ineffective ones. Most AED kits should have a spare set of pads ("wax the chest" with the first set) or a disposable razor.
You're not going to take time to shave, every second counts. The solution is the extra adhesive pads most every AED has. You plant one of those on the the chest hair and rip, and you can get an effectively hairless spot for your lead.
The instructions say that chest hair comes off if the pad isn't sticking effectively to the chest. That means shaving if you have a razor, or using the second adhesives (kid/adult sizes usually come in the same AED kit) as ad hoc waxing devices.
Sounds like a problem for women with chest hair.
you dont have to shave chest hair, wtf are you talking about?
You don't have to, but some defibrillator kits include a razor, and when I took a CPR class, we were taught how to remove hair using either a razor or an extra set of defib pads.
That’s for excessive hair. Just make sure you both aren’t in a puddle.
They're constantly updating best practices, the kits come with a little razor now. Though we got told to apply the pad on the hair and then pull it off, effectively waxing the area. It's apparently to get better contact. Personally I think shaving would be more effective, suppose you do what you have to in the situation.
Waxing would be faster and if there's still hair you could shave it. More painful of course but if it wakes them up you can stop there.
Honestly, I don't find it all that surprising. Men are wise to err on the side of caution when it comes to even the appearance of improper behavior and I could see how many might freeze up in such a situation, even if they knew CPR.
I remember a woman talking about how some kids were running around naked near their house and he had to call her, and she was kind of grumbling about how he wouldn't just handle it himself. I had to explain that I would have done exactly the same. There is no WAY as an adult male I'd be accosting underage naked children and asking where their parents were, etc., unless they were in danger of freezing or other dangers. This woman was acting like her husband was being lazy and/or a wuss. He was just using his head.
You can thank our society for this bullshit. It is because we put women on a pedestal in our society and men have been relegated to being the butt of jokes or the quiet backbones of the working class who have no right to complain, and if they dare not fit into those two categories, they are then accused of toxic masculinity or something similar.
This comes out of puritanical sexual shame and nothing more.
Religion poisoned people's minds regarding sexuality.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it's within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we're talking about tens of thousands here.
Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.
Another important caveat is that we're assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it's a separate issue entirely.
Meh... Even without seeing the data collection methodology, or the analysis, I'm calling shenanigans. Thats an almost non-existent difference - how do we know the cases where women didn't get support are primarily women-only spaces (say women's gym, yoga, etc)?
Someone's using this slight difference to push a narrative.
This isn't a pole. This isn't self reported numbers. Those are real life numbers
It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever.
For example, if they'd only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the "study" would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering "real-life numbers"!
All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets.
I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error.
Pretty much all data has margins of error, including "real life data". The margin of error just often doesn't matter.
But is it a poll?
The more significant finding here is 40% of people don't get CPR - I think this mostly comes down to public ignorance. It's not like most schools make their students CPR certified. I got mine through Boyscouts, but a lot of people don't really get that kind of education.
I wouldn't be surprised if that explains the gender difference, too. Due to ignorance a lot of people might not really grasp the difference between chest compressions and fondling someone's chest 🙄
In germany, you need to take an 8 hour first aid course to get your driver's license.
It's better than nothing, but it's been 5 years for me and I'm not sure if I could still do it properly.
Which is another reason why drivers licenses and the FA course should be repeated every few years.
The amount of people who don’t understand road laws or misremember them is insane
I fully agree. People seem to forget that they are controlling 1.5 tons of steel at a ridiculous speeds and can easily kill someone if they move their hand just a bit too far.
And still my first aid teacher to get my German driver's license said that the survival rate for people whose heart stops is worse in Germany than the US
Did they give numbers or define survival?
It was a few years back. He might have. I mean, he meant survival as in surviving.
He was just lamenting that though people in Germany know CPR, they aren't quick to come to people's aid. I do remember him saying anecdotally that when someone hits the ground in the US a crowd of people forms trying to help, though they might be mostly untrained.
Seems plausible, I found americans to be much more open towards strangers when I was there in 2016.
I don't know maybe because I keep it fresh in my mind for my job but it's really simple.
If you look up emd cpr (proqa) instructions they give yoy very good simple steps to follow depending on how you answer.
There's more to it than that. CPR certifications only last two years (at least in the US) and there's also the liability included with performing CPR that they cover in the class. If you perform CPR but are found to not have a current certification then you can get in a heap of financial debt as your not truly covered by the protections the certification can provide you, mainly around the "permission" to perform the act. Ribs can be broken and lungs can be punctured simply by performing CPR normally with the required amount of pressure needed.
Call 911 and then follow the instructions of the operator who is trained in teaching CPR over the phone in these situations, and knows the latest. That you had training means you are more likely to understand instructions given ,and if not you were following directions of someone else.
You need to call 911 anyway. CPR is only performed on dead people, you need an AED (or similar tools in an ambulance) to bring someone back to life.
Calling 911 is the right way to go. Activating emergency response system. And if you don’t make sure someone else does and tells you they have. So many times people assume someone else called and no one has.
There was a push at one point in time to teach bystander CPR, which focuses on compressions at a rate of 100-120 a minute with a little less focus on landmarks and more “middle of the chest and go”. It also taught that people typically have about 20 minutes of reserve oxygen in their venous system and that compressions continuously increased survivability by keeping the circulation going through compressions. Considering average ems response time in the US, it seemed to reduce confusion and encouraged more community response (not wanting to do mouth to mouth is a fear people have). Not sure if it’s still being taught, but it was fairly well received at the time.
The 'single rescuer' CPR is still taught, and (one) standard says that if the rescuer doesn't want to give breaths by mouth, compressions alone are better than nothing. Giving breaths is still better. Once you have two rescuers, one better be giving breaths. I wish more places had the mouth masks placed with their AEDs. I carry mine around with me, but who the hell actually does that?
Call 911 yes, but if you have training, tell them to stfu and let you do it. They try to have you count out loud with them, but the delay over the phone makes you go off rhythm constantly. I threw the phone across the room when I was giving CPR to my dad. He didn't make it, and I often wonder if it was because of the shitty beginning of the CPR regimen.
That sounds traumatic. Hope you're getting through it (sorry for your loss)
In most cases good Samaritan laws protect people performing CPR regardless of certification.
Though yes, in my ideal world everyone would have up-to-date training paid for by the State.
Good Samaritan laws would protect you from that, no?
One of the beliefs is also the education of CPR is taught on male-form mannequins and that's how folks are taught anatomical landmarks. Many people don't actually know how to find the correct location to compress when breasts are present apparently.
I got mine through Boyscouts, but a lot of people don't really get that kind of education.
Unless you're a kid or a den mom, you don't have CPR training. It only lasts a few years.
Well, no, I have expired training. That's still better than literally nothing, it's not like the knowledge just vanishes. I think I could follow the 911 operator's instructions pretty well.
... though actually, yeah, I probably should fix that.
Makes sense, you could save their life and catch a case.
Well maybe she has a boyfriend
The puritanical culture we have is the ruin of everything. We wouldn't be overly thoughtful about consent this and that if not for awful people getting away with sex crimes left and right, even in current day. Guess what? If you're not a rapist, don't hold yourself to the same stringent standard - do the fucking CPR and save a life.
I would love to see one example where someone was prevented from doing CPR by a bystander because "you shouldn't be touching that woman". I would put money that it has never happened.
Modern CPR training insists yiu have to announce what the fuck you’re doing because people will universally get the wrong idea.
You have no modesty when you’re dying- the underwire in a bra interferes with AEDs working, and the pads have to be on skin. For compressions you need to see where you are so you are, so the clothes come off.
It’s standard to drill that in, precise cause it has happened.
Hell. We’ve heard anecdotes of cops coming in and macing people giving CPR. People frequently assume the worst and act on it.
Modern CPR training insists that you have to announce what the fuck you're doing because that's the standard of communication during an emergency. When we're running a code in the hospital, we announce our actions to the room, so everyone knows what's going on. That's just how it's done
In a hospital.
When it’s a security guard whose probably going to be the only one taking action, because they’re the only one there that has any amount of training, that’s an entirely different scenario.
Or the coach or the teacher or whoever it is. CPR isn’t just done by doctors and paramedics, and there absolutely are plenty of lawsuits and accusations that come from people in the field misunderstanding what’s going on.
Outside a hospital, when a body hits the ground it’s chaos and confusion.
But that's a team of people working together. Theoretically this is one person giving CPR.
Whether it's happened or not, you're also running into two big problems America has:
People who act without thinking
People with a hero fantasy, and also often a gun
It doesn't have to have happened for people to fear that it will. In a nation where too many people carry guns, act rashly, and want to see their face on the news as a local hero, it just sounds too damn possible and risky.
Maybe so. But as someone trained in basic life saving I’m not going to let the fear of some idiot near me doing something extremely stupid stop me from doing the right thing in an emergency. If we all start thinking like that, then we’ve already ceded victory to them.
Not surprising. This aligns with other studies around women and cardiac problems. People have a bias toward identifying the symptoms that men show, and women often have a tendency to display different symptoms.
I... don't think that's the reason why people would avoid specifically CPR, specifically in a public place.
"I have asked people this question on my own, and I've been told by some that they don't know where the [anatomical] landmarks for CPR are due to women having breasts," Dr. Nicole McAllister, clinical assistant professor of emergency medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, tells Yahoo Life.
Many people who receive CPR training practice on flat-chested mannequins and learn that CPR should be performed across the breastbone and nipple line, she says. "Because people think of doing CPR in terms of a male-form dummy, some of this doesn't translate well and they don't feel comfortable doing it in the right spot," McAllister says.
From the article. There's also an expert that bring up your reason, and there are some more explanations given (people don't realise it when a woman has a heart attack, people are afraid of hurting the woman)
I think more likely, this is what he was referring to:
But there are likely other issues at play too, women's health expert Dr. Jennifer Wider, tells Yahoo Life. "One reason is a fear of touching another person without consent, especially a woman — this may discourage a bystander to administer CPR to a woman," she says. (This reason came up in 2021 research conducted by the American Heart Association — people reported that they were not comfortable giving CPR over fear of sexual accusations or inappropriate touching.)
Yes, I mentioned that in my second sentence. The commenter was implying that it's the only reason, though.
Woman get a bake shake from the healthcare system, but I think this is more about tits and people being afraid of touching them to do CPR....
*shake'n'bake
Cool data point, but 7% doesn't feel significant to me.
Cool data point, but 7% doesn't feel significant to me
Probably because you’re not a woman that may need CPR one day. It's easy to dismiss things that won't ever effect you.
Probably because 7% is a small ass number. Give me a 7% statistic about nonbinaries, and we'll see how many fucks I think it's worth.
Of course, because the people trained in CPR are generally men. And men aren't gonna risk getting accused of SA by helping a woman. It's just too risky. What's the point?
This Radiolab Episode always comes to my mind when people bring up CPR in any context. Apparently doctors overwhelmingly don't wish to be resuscitated for a good reason...
It's critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.
"Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury".
That changes everything.
Oh definitely. 10 minutes max to administer CPR before death is pretty much certain. IIRC, after 3 minutes chances of brain damage rise to 80%.
Not to mention the 30% chance of painful broken ribs, but hey at least you're alive with probably a hefty hospital bill, at least in the states.
I suppose that an addendum should be added to do not resuscitate tags. Do not resuscitate after specified time span. Or something like that.
Do not resuscitate tags are not something i'm trained at reading. If I see them and do CPR anyway I am protected by my states good Samaritan laws. If I see them and do nothing I could be in legal trouble! (Not anymore, but I uses to be on an emergency response team and then I was legally required to get involved). Even paramedics are trained to ignore those tags, once the patient is in the hospital there are procedures to verify if they are valid (as opposed to a murderer planting them I guess)
Ultimately I'm more in favor of the default response and laws around the subject being what they are. I just question these norms sometimes because I also strongly believe in the right to die.
This quickly becomes complicated given the contexts of the tragic experiences of those that survive life saving procedures like CPR with a significantly diminished quality of life due to permanent brain damage and other incurred disabilities. At what point does a person who wanted to live given full abilities of their mind and body comes to prefer to die when they no longer possess said cognitive/bodily functions? I honestly wonder.
Not something anyone who is watching somebody fall to the floor and stop breathing can take the time to contemplate, obviously. But the thought still gives me pause.
One of my biggest fears, bigger than dying even, is being "forced" to live when my mental faculties are far gone due to irreparable brain damage. And I wonder if it'd be less emotionally traumatic for my loved ones to have to see me like that than if someone trying to save my life had simply called the efforts no longer worth it after a (hopefully) thoughtful assessment.
I just honestly don't know, and the thoughts around it do occassionally haunt me when I contemplate my own inevitable demise.
Reminds me of a chat I had with a prepped. I basically said that living in a functional society is hard, so I'd rather die quickly in a catastrophic collapse.
As a person who loves being alive, I can honestly say I'd rather be dead under many different specific hypothetical circumstances.
My estimation is that you live long enough, you eventually encounter one or many of those circumstances. The right to live as well as the right to die the way you want should never be infringed upon.
No way I help a woman in that situation. Zero chance unless I already know them well. not casually well, they have to know mebin return. So basically family and nothing further.
I know CPR.
Reap what you sow society.
I had a woman ask me to get I her car to figure out why it wasn't starting for her one time, this isn't even close to CPR and that feeling of dread hit me and I refused. No way I'm putting myself in even greater danger.
I know the reality is thing will likely be fine in both situations. Then I remember multiple women telling lies in my life, accusing me of things I never did.
I had to go to court and has her admit on stand she lied. I almost went to jail and she got off Scott free. That isn't justice.
With how much more weight women's voices get and how much favourably the justice system views women compared to men. Yeah no, fuck that, I will not put myself in a situation where a woman can tell another lie to ruin another life.
lol @ these ridiculous fever dreams of an incel. We both know none of that ever happened.
Okay.
did it to themselves by punishing men who shouldnt be punished because to push an agenda to much
I cannot imagine hating anything as much as you incels hate women. Pathetic.
One time, I put my hand out to stop a kid from running into the street.
Most people were like "Woah that kid almost died." But one Karen looking woman had a "How dare you touch that child" look.
I'm not going to stop saving kids who run into the street. But it did make me question when to involve myself or not. And I can see a lot of people hesitating because some fuckface has something stupid to say.
Yep. People have strange selective views on things.
I was standing with the car at the crossing where it enters the main road. A kid came racing down the bike path from the local primary school on his scooter and tried to get around my car without wasting speed, i.e. slowing down. Physics said: "NO" in no uncertain terms, and the kid kissed the road in front of my car. I got out to help, but he already got up, probably more annoyed about loosing speed than anything else, answered negative on my inquiry if he was hurt or needed help, and was off like lighting.
Two days later, the police was at my door, responding to a neighbors claim that I had run over a kid that day...
I could imagine that neighbour just heard some noise, looked outside, and then just concluded, you must've hit that child, from what the aftermath looked like...
A man stopped my son with his hand from crossing at the signal because a car didn’t see him and could have mowed him down. I think a lot about how that could have gone badly if the man had second guessed himself for even a moment. Legally and socially, we need to be on the side of anyone who makes a split second decision to help in a crisis.
Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.
Nah man. I won't go near kids. Not my problem... If they die because of stupidity... it's just thinning the heard.
You inferred one look from a stranger experiencing a traumatic event, that apparently wasn't reinforced by conversation with her after the fact!? I don't think you should modify anything about your instincts or responses...
You psychoanalyzed him from one comment on an Internet forum without a single reply or anything?
See how that sounds?
Uh, no? No one's analyzing here! I basically told them to trust their instincts, rather than defer to the minority opinion of "all men are pedophiles" (based on their interpretation of the Karen's response). Same advice I would give male lifeguards who would hesitate in possibly saving a life because maybe one person would be hyper-sensitive to any contact. Do what's good and true and right immediately, and deal with haters later...
Yea, guess not.
👏🏼
Nah, cause those haters could put my ass in jail.
So no, I will assess every situation. I ain't touching a woman who's down.
Thank the assholes of the world for that... And also the coworker who flirted with me, and when I didn't flirt with her, she accused me of sexual harassment and I got fired - 30 years ago.
The shit is real, (shitty) women have made the bed, they can lie in it.
Oh boy....
All it takes is one person to accuse you for your life to be ruined. Such is the reality of being a man.
Accusations ruin plenty of people’s lives, regardless of gender.
Men's more than women's, tbh. Accusations of SA never go away, even if you're proven innocent.
Source for accusations against men leading to quantifiably worse outcomes than accusations against women or NB people? I haven’t seen the research that backs up your assertion.
Don't you know? Every woman who is middle aged and doesn't give an appreciating look all the time I want is a misandrist Karen. And if someone dies, it's her and other women's fault.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn't given consent.
One of the few cases where consent of anything can be assumed is lifesaving of a person unable to respond. One of the first steps of cpr is to seek a response to ensure that the person is unconscious before then confirming no pulse.
But yeah I get why it’s awkward
Yeah but the mob around me watching me touch her breasts might not know that.
I'm not CPR certified or anything, but I think if you're just grabbing titties you're probably doing it wrong.
For sure! But I didn’t say you WERE grabbing titties, just that you’re perceived to be.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt…
Can you see that being perceived poorly?
Unlikely that someone holding a defibrillator next to someone passed out on the ground is going to be perceived poorly.
Unfortunately in a panic scenario like that, sometimes people don’t see things as clearly as they might normally.
And people aren’t great on a normal day either.
Not everyone is going to have access to a defibrillator.
Fortunately they are cheap and easy to use correctly (and nearly impossible to use wrong), as such they are all over. If you are in a public place I'd be surprised if you didn't have ready access to a defibrillator in the US, though you may not realize where it is.
You would think so, right? But the reality is that men are always assumed to have the worst intentions. Especially in hindsight. i.e. "he didn't need to do that right? he must be trying to cop a feel".
Same reason men aren't usually kindergarten teachers, because they're immediately assumed to be pedos.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt
You also need to make sure their bra doesn't have an underwire and remove it if there is.
Even though you're joking I wouldn't be surprised if someone did react like that. "Uhhmmmm, that's no CPR, you're just fondling her! I know because I went to CPR training."
The instructors advise you to speak aloud your actions as you do them. Also helps if you have already levelled out instructions to the rent a crowd to perform specific tasks like send for help and get the defib and you three who said yes to cpr training let's line up and take turns doing cpr.
...of course, the training to be comfortable giving these instructions is not really done.
Absolutely!
And what if you’re outside a bar and everyone is drunk?
Unfortunately life doesn’t provide ideal scenarios, not to mention that under the duress of what you’re doing you may forget steps.
I’m not saying that fondling an unconscious person is the same as cpr, but that perceptions are funny things.
Then put whichever Karen looks fiercest in charge of compressions. Either she'll get in there and do them, or she'll demur, in which case you say you will and she should watch so she can start when you get tired. That makes her your witness. Don't forget to tell someone else to call emergency services.
By the time you try to convince any Karen to do anything, the person would have died.
Good point. On the other hand if you tell her to start, and when she starts to object you say fine I'll do them until i get too tired, she'll feel like she won the argument which is a step in the right direction.
Wise.
If you’re touching her tits, you’re not giving proper CPR. Proper CPR happens just below the sternum. That’s well below any kind of bra band. If her tits are that low, she’s either an EE cup or 80 years old.
Huh, I looked it up and checked out the instructions and diagrams of several websites. Every one of them said to place your hands on the upper part of the chest and every image showed their hands between the nipples.
I heard the saying: if you didn't break a rib you didn't do CPR right. So I'm pretty sure it's not beneath the sternum
Wouldn’t that be the hemlich?
You need to compress the chest, so pressure needs to go on the sternum. If you're pressing below it, the only thing you're compressing is their intestines, which is not gonna help anyone
Wouldn't that break the xyphoid process? Below that is where you Heimlich. Above, on the strong center bone, is where you do chest compression. Also, as a haver of boobs, I can vouch that they will have enough space between them when she's flat on her back and braless that you can put your locked fists between them on that bone and shove the heel of your hand towards the floor.
Okay but we’ve already established that it’s not about what you ARE doing, but what people think you’re doing.
Perception.
onsent of lifesaving attempts can be assumed, not of anything
COWS. "Can you here me?" "Open your eyes." "What's your name?" "Squeeze my hands."
Understandable, but you only need to do it if there is no pulse. If you are doing chest compressions to save their life, I am sure the majority would be quite happy with not dying. You don't need to take off their top, and you are pressing on their sternum rather than their breasts. You can't really mistake CPR for anything else if you are doing it correctly.
Well, you do if using AED. Tom Scott has video on those too: https://youtu.be/ecVHYg4_vZw
I know, but I was just assuming chest compressions, no other tools. If you're strapping electrodes to an unconscious person, and the machine is talking you through the CPR steps, it's even less likely to be assumed to be anything than what it is.
You would think that, but the reality is different.
You can’t, that doesn’t mean that some white knight in the crowd doesn’t.
While I agree the risk is low, it’s not zero.
Youre afraid to save a persons life because there is a near zero chance that a very unlikely hypothetical situation may occur? Youre okay with letting someone die because you might get verbally chided, or worse, have someone misunderstand and be slightly rough with you? Wow.
I honestly can't imagine being this scared of the world.
You can’t say “near zero” you don’t have the numbers.
It depends entirely on circumstance.
And you know that.
But it’s wonderful that you want to judge me as a keyboard warrior. I applaud how tough you are. Have a nice day.
Please, give me any numbers that show people have been harassed, threatened or injured while performing CPR on a women.
You consider it an unlikely but possible threat. I would like to see what data informs that threat to you.
I expect its none, and instead you just want to feel persecuted because "women standing up for themselves in modern society makes me scared, so im going to pretend thats why i wont help a women that's dying."
Again, fear driven and sad.
You're the one who claimed near zero, onus is on you.
We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
But I’ll back up my statements with references
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/23/why-people-fear-performing-cpr-on-women-and-what-to-do-about-it
Will you do the same? Or will you continue to ask me for information to back up your arguments?
You made the suggestion that it was “near zero” and now you’re asking me for proof that it isn’t near zero.
Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is "I can't find any proof there is danger here?"
The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
You made a claim:
"this action has risk."
You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
Now you're asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
Thats your gotcha argument? "I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn't exist, so therefore it does exist?"
Is this your first day on the internet?
Best rebuttal is calling people cowards eh?
You win, but I wish you would reconsider that I may have a point despite your distaste for it.
Have a nice day.
And if someone gets the wrong perception so what? And what of the other x+ people seeing you do the right thing?
I'd 100% cunt punt someone trying to attack someone performing life saving procedures on someone in crisis
This isn't about giving lifesaving procedures, this is days latter when someone realizes what happens. There is plenty or evidence that 'bad touch' happened, and so lacking good Samaritan laws the law was violated and that is all we need to arrest someone. This type of harassment has happened, but I have no idea how often it does .
It's pretty wild that you're getting on someone's case about lacking evidence when you've utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I know paramedics who got formal complaints about this. Their boss ignored as the paramedics were acting as trained.
I am a paramedic, these comments have lost me. At least in the United States there is a 0% chance anything will happen if someone does CPR on another while acting in good faith.
This does exclude some some uncomfortable situations where family is screaming at me that I’m not doing enough or that I need to help them and people have appeared to be close to getting violent but I’ve never been attacked, and if someone is threatening another individual that is trying to help, leave. We can’t help other people if we become another person who needs help.
But I’ve done CPR on a lot of people, it’s violent. No one around will ever have to wonder what is being done, it is very clear and I don’t believe it is possible to confuse with touching an unconscious person inappropriately. Again, these comments have lost me. Maybe if some of these people would see a resuscitation attempt, they’d probably realize once the patient is spitting up blood from how violently their chest is being pushed on, there is no way to misinterpret CPR for groping.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
But you’re not gonna listen to that either.
😉 have a nice day.
Suddenly trying to substitute "perceived risk" for "real risk" is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn't at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
You've been making the claim in almost every comment that there's a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You've provided no evidence for that risk. You've admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it's a real risk. You don't just get to say, "Well neither of us know for sure therefore you must accept my claim". That's ridiculous.
Have a nice day.
Verbally chided? Getting sued for SA and getting your life ruined doesn't really seem like "verbally chided". Yeah, I'd probably let people die because my life is more important.
Yes, I am.
I'm not risking jail over this crap. Lost a job over it once, so I have personal, first-hand experience with the bullshit.
CPR does not save lives. It preserves a dead body until an AED or ambulance can bring it back to life. You need to remove her shirt and often bra (if there is a wire it must go, otherwise only if in the way) to use an AED so if some item of clothing is in the way don't worry about removing it.
Note that the above is generic CPR training that doesn't respect local laws which can say something different.
AED's will not help someone whose heart is stopped (i.e. no pulse). They are used to shock the heart into restoring its normal rhythm. It will not start a heart that has stopped beating.
Yeahhhh... and it makes me glad that the 'A' part in AED exists, because there are apparently a not insignificant number of people who have gotten their CPR training from TV.
CPR absolutely does save lives. The success rate outside hospitals is around 10%. That's thousands of lives saved every year.
Please do not say CPR does not save lives, it 100% does. And in the United States our Good Samaritan laws protect anyone from liability if they are acting in good faith trying to help someone.
I’m a paramedic in the United States, hold a certification as a flight medic, nothing I can bring, in a helicopter or an ambulance will do anything for anyone if high quality CPR isn’t performed.
To break things down, yes in adults early defibrillation does make a huge difference but in kids it is literally high quality CPR that saves them. If you’d like I’d be happy to break down the details of resuscitation, but without CPR until I can get there and attempt resuscitation, then no matter how much I throw at someone to try to get their heart beating again, they’ll still be brain dead.
My CPR instructors put it the way I wrote it to encourage us to spend more effort on getting the AED and paramedics there fast. If you do CPR before the AED/paramedics is on the way you are wasting time, but getting those has been started CPR is important. However this is clearly semantics, I think we are all in agreement that CPR is important.
Not all states have "good Samaritan" laws. Most do, but if you live in the exception you might suffer harassment after doing CPR, including go to court - odds are the court will throw the case out, but it will still be annoying to do the right thing in those states. Though even lacking such laws, the odds that anything will happen are low.
Also not everyone lives in America. In more conservative places in Asia, touching a random woman (even if she is unconscious) and clearly in need of help is really asking to be judged.
And if a video with accusatory narration is posted on tiktok or something, you're basically done for. Especially in a small town or country. You're basically doxxed and won't be easily hired for work because background checks are easily done, and the company (basically the HR) isn't going to risk the bad rep of hiring a potential molester, rapist, etc even if it's just an accusation by random people.
Sorry forgot about this post, but it us an important topic to me. I’m only speaking for the United States All 50 states and the District of Columbia have a good Samaritan law, in addition to Federal laws for specific circumstances.
And I agree some of this is just getting into semantics but yes get an AED if one is available, early defibrillation is without a doubt the best way to increase survival rates also activate emergency services as soon as possible there are things we carry that can help if the patient is receiving adequate CPR prior to our arrival, those steps are crucial. But ensure that you minimize any time spent not provided high quality CPR. Without blood flowing to the patients brain, it starts to die. Once the brain is dead there is nothing in modern medicine that can revive it.
I don’t have an argument if someone is concerned about consequences for helping another person. I do what I do so I can sleep at night knowing I did what I believed was best and I did it to the best of my abilities. If I have to go to court then so be it, the bonus for me going to court is at least I’ll get to meet someone I’ve helped successfully resuscitate, that alone would make going to court worth it, independent of any verdict that is rendered. But that’s just me, I’ve had to pronounce a lot of people. I’ve had one or two go into cardiac arrest in front of my and then after treating them they talked to me during the ride to the hospital and I know I’ve had a handful of people that made a full and complete neurological recovery, but I’ve never gotten to meet any of them, which is also fine, but it would be neat to get to talk to one of them and hear their side of the experience.
I'm pretty sure most places in the states have laws protecting people but there have been people who were sued for giving cpr to someone who wasn't very grateful.
Good Samaritan laws.
If you have cpr or aed training....and a person is unconscious, consent is implied. Especially if you follow training. You felt for a pulse and/or they were not breathing, you will not get sued in this country. If someone manages to get it to court, they will lose.
I am a certified CPR and AED , a registered WFR and just had a training class on the matter. As long as you follow proper protocol you are ok. And I'd like to add, as a man, yeah, I'd be nervous also exposing a womans chest in a crowd, people are stupid, but you can probably save a life.
If you're doing CPR they're effectively dead before you start. If you're the only one there, no witnesses unless you manage to save her. If you're not alone, you should tell them you're going to start CPR and order them to call 911 or 999 or whatever. Or volunteer to call while they start compressions. Then you can take over/take turns and vouch for each 's intentions.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a person who hasn’t given consent.
Someone who has no heartbeat automaticlly has given consent to receive CPR.
Not necessarily. Being unable to give consent doesn't mean you consent. Also being dead doesn't mean you consent either.
Bystander: She's apneic and has no pulse! I'm beginning CPR!
Commences compressions
Patient: Uh actually I have a boyfriend
"I was trying to save your life."
"Ugh are you still talking to me?"
I think the average person can tell what's going on if they see someone prone on the ground and someone doing chest compressions.
I used to think the same. Then trump happened.
You would think that, right? But no. If you're a guy, you automatically think of all the ways you can get accused of SA, even when you're genuinely trying to help. So most guys just don't. It's not worth the risk.
What country's this? Shithole as it is in other ways, in the UK you can't be prosecuted or sued for basically anything if you're resuscitating someone.
I would love to live in that universe of yours were the average person is well informed and rational.
Conversely, we had a call for a woman passed out in a car called in by a bystander. We arrived and she was still seated in the car, with a man doing one-armed compressions on her chest. It looked bad ... until we got closer and saw she was both awake and speaking normally to her "savior", and his CPR was on the level of "movie CPR".
We figured he would stop on his own once he realized she was awake: he didn't. We figured she would in some way indicated he needed to stop, or at least react adversely in any way to the man pushing (weakly) on her chest ... she didn't. We had to tell him to stop.
To his credit I think he just saw someone down and got tunnel vision. Based on his face the realization of how absurd it was hit a few seconds later.
Super facts
Some US states do not have Good Samaritan laws. This means that you could save someone's life, they could sue you, and they could win. It's pretty fucked up.
This sounded strange to me, so I looked it up. This Wikipedia article suggests all US states have a good samaritan law, and some extend that further by requiring bystanders to reasonably provide assistance. However, who is liable and to what extent appears to vary. Additionally, interactions with other state laws could complicate things.
All that said, I admittedly don't know much about good samaritan laws beyond this article.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Some of those laws are more recent, I believe. I got CPR certified in the 90s and the police officer instructing the course did indeed warn us to be careful about saving people as we could possibly get sued.
If I had to guess, it was a symptom of the sue-everyone-for-everything craze in those days, crossed with state laws that didn’t yet provide explicit protections for good samaritans because you generally don’t try to harm someone who went out of their way to save your life.
FYI if you look at the actual numbers, that frivolous lawsuit situation was manufactured by the media. Lawsuits have been in near continuous decline since that narrative started.
I'm currently certified and we are told that unconscious means consent and once you determine they're not breathing (only criteria) then you perform cpr. I've been certified for over 7 years as a dispatcher and we often provide these exact instructions. Since we deal with the whole of the US we use national protocols which are valid throughout the country (emd epd protocols) and unless you know for SURE they are breathing you perform CPR every time. Doesn't matter if they have a DNR. Unless of course they just had a seizure then you wait. But if you can't confirm breathing or you say they're snoring we are going straight to chest compressions. I've been trained by some of the most knowledgeable people who I was lucky to have the privilege to learn from. This training has served me very well.
The course I took this summer gave similar guidance, and dispelled any worries about getting sued for helping.
Interestingly though, the instructor said we should not provide breaths mouth to mouth without a guard if we suspect drug use, or even just don’t know the person. Apparently fentanyl has changed that landscape.
Uhhh, what's the point of a DNR then? Let me die if I want to, ffs.
DNR is for the hospital staff who are legally trained and have time to figure out if it is valid. When seconds count nobody has time to check for fraudulent DNR tags.
Someone calling 911 for a person with a DNR isn't going to be a good source of information on said DNR. A dispatcher isn't going to attempt to verify the DNR is valid through the phone with someone that's panicked, so "just do CPR" is the safe course of action.
If you get a DNR it needs to explained to your family what it means so they at least know what to do. And even if they freak out EMS/a nurse/etc will see the DNR and not continue resuscitation.
It's fully possible that the cop instructing the course didn't know the law at all, especially a federal law.
Do you have expiring CPR qualifications, or are they valid for life?
CPR qualifications expire, but they don’t “mean” anything legally. They’ll get your company an insurance discount if enough employees are certified. But that’s pretty much it. If you know how to do CPR, it’s not going to change too much from year to year. The compressions/breaths count may change, but a 911 operator will know the updated counts anyways, and you should already have them on speakerphone next to you if you’re doing CPR.
Basically, don’t let an out-of-date CPR certification stop you from providing first aid. Because as long as you give a reasonable best effort, Good Samaritan laws will protect you regardless of what date is written on a CPR certificate.
Oh yeah, I'm from Australia so I was just wondering what the situation in the States is.
I needed to be certified because we provide cpr instructions to callers. We must do our best to convince callers to provide CPR when necessary and we need to know what we are doing and not just know how to read them the instructions in case they're in an unusual position or situation.
I don’t recall specifically, but it was a requirement for a job with the city and taught by the police and county EMTs, so I’d guess the more formal Red Cross one. I didn’t keep it up after I left that job so I’m sure if there was an expiration date, it passed long ago.
I did another one this summer and it expires in two years.
Huh Wisconsin is a duty to rescue state
“I didn’t see anything.”
That does seem to be the prevailing attitude in Wisconsin
There’s no state that requires you to do more than a 911 call to report the emergency.
That depends. If you are a professional you may be required to do more. Professional includes being on the office emergency team.
This is for the US, other places may have differing laws, and I might be mistaken- and if so, please drop the relevant law. However, generally, the duty of rescue/care only comes from one of three sources:
(to my knowledge,) no state has any legal obligation to provide rescue or emergency care. Doctors and nurses may have ethical duties, but that's between you and where ever you get your ethics from. not saying you shouldn't... but the obligation isn't from a legal standpoint. The purpose of GS laws aren't to force a person to provide care- they were originally to protect doctors and nurses from medical malpractice lawsuits for trying to do a good thing. Theyv'e subsequently expaned to the general public. The reason those protections are necessary is that while not on-duty, the doctor isn't generally being covered by their malpractice insurance- they would be personally liable, and lawsuits are expensive- even if you loose.
And no, office emergency teams do not qualify as medical professionals*. They're generally not medically licensed, generally lack advanced training, generally, their roll as an ERT-type is secondary to other job tasks, and generally are only obligated to act by their contract with their employers- not the law. Further, there is no legal obligation, even for medical professionals when off duty. Licensing bodies, employers and such like may impose ethical obligations to maintain their professional licensing, but those are not criminal law, and the consequences are not enforced by the state or federal legal code.
*excepting people like school nurses, or doctors/nurses in prisons or whatever, who do happen to be licensed as a matter of their job title
It was 20 years ago, but then my training made sure to make it clear I was obliged to provide aid in the state I was in. I have no idea what the laws are.
We need to ask Jackie Chiles.
Every state has something.
But that only provides legal protection from lawsuits after the fact; generally, they require that you act in a reason way, in the scope of your training (or under direction of say 911 dispatch,)
Some will also mandate that you call 911 immediately- though no state requires more than that
My understanding of it is that CPR has a lot of negative side effects that we're usually not told about or aware of, like cracking or breaking a rib during compressions.
Not that this is in any way good, but I think some have successfully sued their saviors due to complications from CPR.
I think a law should be passed that says you can't sue someone for complications of saving your life, but, you know...
@OceanSoap @alienanimals Sounds like it’s time to push for Good Samaritan laws in every state. We have one in California. And yes, there can be side effects, but these aren’t limited to GSs. Medical personnel can inflict them as well (damage with intubation comes to mind), and if the injuries are consistent with life saving measures, they are protected. Why shouldn’t GSs also be covered?
Throw in that CPR is effective in 10% of situations and maybe there are reasons why people don't act. 10% is wayyy better than 0% so it is always worth trying.
I'm cpr certified and was told this during training. Maybe it's not general population knowledge though.
Can I get some qualifications so I can send them a bill, if this happens?
At least here, the good Samaritan law specifically excepts people that are receiving compensation for it.
I live in a very strict and conservative country and once a young girl passed out in front of everyone. Her sister was panicking screaming at her to try to breath. I'm usually a savior vigilante type of guy whenever and wherever the situation but sadly at that time I was wearing shorts. So my immediate reaction was to nope out and pretend I didn't see anything. They had to bring another woman who was working close by to do CPR and resuscitate her. The girl then survived obviously. I later had feelings of guilt that I did not step in to help, but in the same time I could've been jailed for touching her and worse get beaten by everyone there. what an awful dilemma ...
Just take the shorts off before helping
Was it illegal there to touch a woman while wearing shorts?
I believe it's more the fear of looking informal or unprofessional. Without more formal clothes, he was afraid of looking like a random chancer copping a feel instead of someone trying to save a life. Pretty silly in retrospect but definitely a possible fear in the moment.
I don't know why but my brain went the direction of "it's harder to hide a random boner in shorts" but don't ask me why my brain is fucked that way.
It's not you. Saying 'wearing shorts' is why you didn't give CPR is fucking stupid.
He said he could have been jailed or beaten for touching her. The shorts probably just made the situation worse.
In order to use a defibrillator, you have to remove everything from a person's chest. This includes the bra and to even shave chest hair to be able to apply the pads correctly.
I've always thought that it would be troublesome for a man to have to apply a defibrillator to a woman if someone assumes foul play because of their own issues.
Life over dignity in that situation, everyone else be damned.
If I saw someone with a defibrillator ripping the clothes off an unconscious woman, I don't think I would suspect foul play.
You might not, but you gotta remember that the public is also filled with idiots
While my cousin's neighbor is fighting a law suit because, a woman (cousin's neighbor) used defibrillator on another woman(when her heart stopped) , and other woman is now suing the neighbor for some minor marks from defibrillator. Mostly neighbor will win the case, but she has to appear in court now. Makes me feel so angry and i don't even know the neighbor lady.
in these cases sometimes the insurance makes you sue even if you don't want to because otherwise they won't pay for any of the debt
My colleague has a situation where he's being sued by his neighbor for minor burns after a firework accident a few years ago 4th of July. The neighbor doesn't want to sue him but has no choice to get the medical services paid for.
That is so ridiculous...
I wonder if judges could be persuaded to levy punitive damages against the insurance company for this kind of thing. "Your honor, we're only wasting your time with this because the insurance company is making us sue. Could you confiscate a few hundred million dollars from them for this worthless harassment?"
At least in America, all the judges are either in the pocket of the businesses or have their hands tied by laws passed by legislators who are in the pocket of businesses. Fuck them businesses.
The ultimate goal with insurance companies is to have you give them money and they never have to give you anything in return. If they can get you to sue the other person, the insurance company doesn't have to pay. To them it's a win-win.
Weakly regulated insurance is a scam
And you have to remember that there's a difference between what some random idiot on the street thinks and what someone can actually be prosecuted for.
Jesus Christ, do the fucking CPR
Surely there are good Samaritan laws even in the US?
There are, but remember that defenses come into play after being sued. So you can still go through the mental nightmare (because let's be real, a rich person isn't going to be doing CPR, and certainly isn't going to care about being sued, so only your typical person who could lose everything in this scenario) of being a defendant in a lawsuit until the judge agrees to toss it or you go to court and are found not liable.
The public scrutiny and the mark on your record does not go away even if you're found not liable. Once you are even accused of anything like this, it's there forever. People will think you got off on a "technicality".
If you're a man facing this, your life is ruined. May as well move away and never come back.
It's not just about being prosecuted, but publicly judged and shamed for.
Never said I wouldn't do the CPR. Only pointing out that in an emergency situation that people are fucking stupid and that a random idiot could easily interfere violently with what they think might be sexual assault
I agree do the CPR but my fear would be getting kicked in the head not sued
Which is why all the most clever rapists carry defibs.
If you EVER see a man carrying a defibrillator, 9 of 10 times, he's a rapist.
What's worse, the extra super clever ones, ride around in ambulances with disguises to make them look like paramedics.
Whenever I see a rapist mobile with flashing lights, I run them off the road.
I've saved at least a dozen women already this year.
To be fair there are rapist mobiles and they do have flashing lights, they just don't say "Ambulance" on them.
I could imagine someone thinking "wow he took her bra off, that was unnecessary". Since correct defib use isn't really common knowledge
It does not have to be life over dignity. There can be a middle ground they could at least provide a cover while doing their thing. I know a teen girl who changed school, did therapy and tried to sue because she once had a seizure and they stripped her naked in front everyone to save her. Her "friends" took video of her and spread it all over their school. As awful as it sounds I'm not making this up.
Fuck the other kids for taking and sharing videos, people suck.
Yup, and that's exactly why men don't help. They tried to save her, but got sued. It's really not worth it.
I'd expect the people who shared footage to be sued, not the first responders.
Why does almost no one clear the area in these posted experiences? That was covered in my (very) basic first aid training. It was emphasized, and it came with a heavy reminder that patient care should be a very high priority. I'm honestly just suprised to read all of these.
Y'all need better trainers and better Good Samaritan laws to protect you. What a world where someone just dies when they could have been saved by someone who was already nearby. Society sucks. Neither "angle" is great.
Yup, society sucks. It's probably selfish of me, but I ain't saving someone when it's possible that I get accused of SA. It's just not worth it. The hassle and the possiblilty of being labelled could affect my future and jobs.
I just did red cross CPR and AED training last week, and the materials said the clothes all need to come off (or pulled up or whatever - off the chest) but chest hair doesn't need to be shaved. Presumably the instructions change periodically.
Its probably much better to have a shaved chest, but lets be realistic. In a situation where CPR and an AED are being used, 1. you probably arent going to have a razor handy 2. the sub-optimal contact with the skin is the least of you (or the patient's) worries.
I took a course a couple of years agao and I believe they said the AEDs come with a razor
Can confirm. Almost all defibrillators come with a pack of additional supplies - including a dry razor
They also teach now to use the provided additional set of pads to basically wax the chest.
It's only an issue on very hairy chests -- i.e. full "bearskin rug" where you need to place the pads. There are patients that have so much hair the pads aren't even touching skin.
In which case you absolutely need to remove the hair. A slightly delayed initial defibrillation is better than multiple ineffective ones. Most AED kits should have a spare set of pads ("wax the chest" with the first set) or a disposable razor.
You're not going to take time to shave, every second counts. The solution is the extra adhesive pads most every AED has. You plant one of those on the the chest hair and rip, and you can get an effectively hairless spot for your lead.
The instructions say that chest hair comes off if the pad isn't sticking effectively to the chest. That means shaving if you have a razor, or using the second adhesives (kid/adult sizes usually come in the same AED kit) as ad hoc waxing devices.
Sounds like a problem for women with chest hair.
you dont have to shave chest hair, wtf are you talking about?
You don't have to, but some defibrillator kits include a razor, and when I took a CPR class, we were taught how to remove hair using either a razor or an extra set of defib pads.
That’s for excessive hair. Just make sure you both aren’t in a puddle.
They're constantly updating best practices, the kits come with a little razor now. Though we got told to apply the pad on the hair and then pull it off, effectively waxing the area. It's apparently to get better contact. Personally I think shaving would be more effective, suppose you do what you have to in the situation.
Waxing would be faster and if there's still hair you could shave it. More painful of course but if it wakes them up you can stop there.
Honestly, I don't find it all that surprising. Men are wise to err on the side of caution when it comes to even the appearance of improper behavior and I could see how many might freeze up in such a situation, even if they knew CPR.
I remember a woman talking about how some kids were running around naked near their house and he had to call her, and she was kind of grumbling about how he wouldn't just handle it himself. I had to explain that I would have done exactly the same. There is no WAY as an adult male I'd be accosting underage naked children and asking where their parents were, etc., unless they were in danger of freezing or other dangers. This woman was acting like her husband was being lazy and/or a wuss. He was just using his head.
You can thank our society for this bullshit. It is because we put women on a pedestal in our society and men have been relegated to being the butt of jokes or the quiet backbones of the working class who have no right to complain, and if they dare not fit into those two categories, they are then accused of toxic masculinity or something similar.
This comes out of puritanical sexual shame and nothing more. Religion poisoned people's minds regarding sexuality.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it's within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we're talking about tens of thousands here.
Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.
Another important caveat is that we're assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it's a separate issue entirely.
Meh... Even without seeing the data collection methodology, or the analysis, I'm calling shenanigans. Thats an almost non-existent difference - how do we know the cases where women didn't get support are primarily women-only spaces (say women's gym, yoga, etc)?
Someone's using this slight difference to push a narrative.
What do you mean by "margin of error"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
This isn't a pole. This isn't self reported numbers. Those are real life numbers
It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever.
For example, if they'd only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the "study" would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering "real-life numbers"!
All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets.
I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error.
Pretty much all data has margins of error, including "real life data". The margin of error just often doesn't matter.
But is it a poll?
The more significant finding here is 40% of people don't get CPR - I think this mostly comes down to public ignorance. It's not like most schools make their students CPR certified. I got mine through Boyscouts, but a lot of people don't really get that kind of education.
I wouldn't be surprised if that explains the gender difference, too. Due to ignorance a lot of people might not really grasp the difference between chest compressions and fondling someone's chest 🙄
In germany, you need to take an 8 hour first aid course to get your driver's license.
It's better than nothing, but it's been 5 years for me and I'm not sure if I could still do it properly.
Which is another reason why drivers licenses and the FA course should be repeated every few years.
The amount of people who don’t understand road laws or misremember them is insane
I fully agree. People seem to forget that they are controlling 1.5 tons of steel at a ridiculous speeds and can easily kill someone if they move their hand just a bit too far.
And still my first aid teacher to get my German driver's license said that the survival rate for people whose heart stops is worse in Germany than the US
Did they give numbers or define survival?
It was a few years back. He might have. I mean, he meant survival as in surviving. He was just lamenting that though people in Germany know CPR, they aren't quick to come to people's aid. I do remember him saying anecdotally that when someone hits the ground in the US a crowd of people forms trying to help, though they might be mostly untrained.
Seems plausible, I found americans to be much more open towards strangers when I was there in 2016.
I don't know maybe because I keep it fresh in my mind for my job but it's really simple. If you look up emd cpr (proqa) instructions they give yoy very good simple steps to follow depending on how you answer.
There's more to it than that. CPR certifications only last two years (at least in the US) and there's also the liability included with performing CPR that they cover in the class. If you perform CPR but are found to not have a current certification then you can get in a heap of financial debt as your not truly covered by the protections the certification can provide you, mainly around the "permission" to perform the act. Ribs can be broken and lungs can be punctured simply by performing CPR normally with the required amount of pressure needed.
Call 911 and then follow the instructions of the operator who is trained in teaching CPR over the phone in these situations, and knows the latest. That you had training means you are more likely to understand instructions given ,and if not you were following directions of someone else.
You need to call 911 anyway. CPR is only performed on dead people, you need an AED (or similar tools in an ambulance) to bring someone back to life.
Calling 911 is the right way to go. Activating emergency response system. And if you don’t make sure someone else does and tells you they have. So many times people assume someone else called and no one has.
There was a push at one point in time to teach bystander CPR, which focuses on compressions at a rate of 100-120 a minute with a little less focus on landmarks and more “middle of the chest and go”. It also taught that people typically have about 20 minutes of reserve oxygen in their venous system and that compressions continuously increased survivability by keeping the circulation going through compressions. Considering average ems response time in the US, it seemed to reduce confusion and encouraged more community response (not wanting to do mouth to mouth is a fear people have). Not sure if it’s still being taught, but it was fairly well received at the time.
The 'single rescuer' CPR is still taught, and (one) standard says that if the rescuer doesn't want to give breaths by mouth, compressions alone are better than nothing. Giving breaths is still better. Once you have two rescuers, one better be giving breaths. I wish more places had the mouth masks placed with their AEDs. I carry mine around with me, but who the hell actually does that?
Call 911 yes, but if you have training, tell them to stfu and let you do it. They try to have you count out loud with them, but the delay over the phone makes you go off rhythm constantly. I threw the phone across the room when I was giving CPR to my dad. He didn't make it, and I often wonder if it was because of the shitty beginning of the CPR regimen.
That sounds traumatic. Hope you're getting through it (sorry for your loss)
In most cases good Samaritan laws protect people performing CPR regardless of certification.
Though yes, in my ideal world everyone would have up-to-date training paid for by the State.
Good Samaritan laws would protect you from that, no?
One of the beliefs is also the education of CPR is taught on male-form mannequins and that's how folks are taught anatomical landmarks. Many people don't actually know how to find the correct location to compress when breasts are present apparently.
Unless you're a kid or a den mom, you don't have CPR training. It only lasts a few years.
Well, no, I have expired training. That's still better than literally nothing, it's not like the knowledge just vanishes. I think I could follow the 911 operator's instructions pretty well.
... though actually, yeah, I probably should fix that.
Makes sense, you could save their life and catch a case.
Well maybe she has a boyfriend
The puritanical culture we have is the ruin of everything. We wouldn't be overly thoughtful about consent this and that if not for awful people getting away with sex crimes left and right, even in current day. Guess what? If you're not a rapist, don't hold yourself to the same stringent standard - do the fucking CPR and save a life.
I would love to see one example where someone was prevented from doing CPR by a bystander because "you shouldn't be touching that woman". I would put money that it has never happened.
Modern CPR training insists yiu have to announce what the fuck you’re doing because people will universally get the wrong idea.
You have no modesty when you’re dying- the underwire in a bra interferes with AEDs working, and the pads have to be on skin. For compressions you need to see where you are so you are, so the clothes come off.
It’s standard to drill that in, precise cause it has happened.
Hell. We’ve heard anecdotes of cops coming in and macing people giving CPR. People frequently assume the worst and act on it.
Modern CPR training insists that you have to announce what the fuck you're doing because that's the standard of communication during an emergency. When we're running a code in the hospital, we announce our actions to the room, so everyone knows what's going on. That's just how it's done
In a hospital.
When it’s a security guard whose probably going to be the only one taking action, because they’re the only one there that has any amount of training, that’s an entirely different scenario.
Or the coach or the teacher or whoever it is. CPR isn’t just done by doctors and paramedics, and there absolutely are plenty of lawsuits and accusations that come from people in the field misunderstanding what’s going on.
Outside a hospital, when a body hits the ground it’s chaos and confusion.
But that's a team of people working together. Theoretically this is one person giving CPR.
Whether it's happened or not, you're also running into two big problems America has:
It doesn't have to have happened for people to fear that it will. In a nation where too many people carry guns, act rashly, and want to see their face on the news as a local hero, it just sounds too damn possible and risky.
Maybe so. But as someone trained in basic life saving I’m not going to let the fear of some idiot near me doing something extremely stupid stop me from doing the right thing in an emergency. If we all start thinking like that, then we’ve already ceded victory to them.
Not surprising. This aligns with other studies around women and cardiac problems. People have a bias toward identifying the symptoms that men show, and women often have a tendency to display different symptoms.
I... don't think that's the reason why people would avoid specifically CPR, specifically in a public place.
From the article. There's also an expert that bring up your reason, and there are some more explanations given (people don't realise it when a woman has a heart attack, people are afraid of hurting the woman)
I think more likely, this is what he was referring to:
Yes, I mentioned that in my second sentence. The commenter was implying that it's the only reason, though.
Woman get a bake shake from the healthcare system, but I think this is more about tits and people being afraid of touching them to do CPR....
*shake'n'bake
Cool data point, but 7% doesn't feel significant to me.
Probably because you’re not a woman that may need CPR one day. It's easy to dismiss things that won't ever effect you.
Probably because 7% is a small ass number. Give me a 7% statistic about nonbinaries, and we'll see how many fucks I think it's worth.
Of course, because the people trained in CPR are generally men. And men aren't gonna risk getting accused of SA by helping a woman. It's just too risky. What's the point?
This Radiolab Episode always comes to my mind when people bring up CPR in any context. Apparently doctors overwhelmingly don't wish to be resuscitated for a good reason...
It's critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.
"Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury".
That changes everything.
Oh definitely. 10 minutes max to administer CPR before death is pretty much certain. IIRC, after 3 minutes chances of brain damage rise to 80%.
Not to mention the 30% chance of painful broken ribs, but hey at least you're alive with probably a hefty hospital bill, at least in the states.
I suppose that an addendum should be added to do not resuscitate tags. Do not resuscitate after specified time span. Or something like that.
Do not resuscitate tags are not something i'm trained at reading. If I see them and do CPR anyway I am protected by my states good Samaritan laws. If I see them and do nothing I could be in legal trouble! (Not anymore, but I uses to be on an emergency response team and then I was legally required to get involved). Even paramedics are trained to ignore those tags, once the patient is in the hospital there are procedures to verify if they are valid (as opposed to a murderer planting them I guess)
Ultimately I'm more in favor of the default response and laws around the subject being what they are. I just question these norms sometimes because I also strongly believe in the right to die.
This quickly becomes complicated given the contexts of the tragic experiences of those that survive life saving procedures like CPR with a significantly diminished quality of life due to permanent brain damage and other incurred disabilities. At what point does a person who wanted to live given full abilities of their mind and body comes to prefer to die when they no longer possess said cognitive/bodily functions? I honestly wonder.
Not something anyone who is watching somebody fall to the floor and stop breathing can take the time to contemplate, obviously. But the thought still gives me pause.
One of my biggest fears, bigger than dying even, is being "forced" to live when my mental faculties are far gone due to irreparable brain damage. And I wonder if it'd be less emotionally traumatic for my loved ones to have to see me like that than if someone trying to save my life had simply called the efforts no longer worth it after a (hopefully) thoughtful assessment.
I just honestly don't know, and the thoughts around it do occassionally haunt me when I contemplate my own inevitable demise.
Reminds me of a chat I had with a prepped. I basically said that living in a functional society is hard, so I'd rather die quickly in a catastrophic collapse.
As a person who loves being alive, I can honestly say I'd rather be dead under many different specific hypothetical circumstances.
My estimation is that you live long enough, you eventually encounter one or many of those circumstances. The right to live as well as the right to die the way you want should never be infringed upon.
No way I help a woman in that situation. Zero chance unless I already know them well. not casually well, they have to know mebin return. So basically family and nothing further.
I know CPR.
Reap what you sow society.
I had a woman ask me to get I her car to figure out why it wasn't starting for her one time, this isn't even close to CPR and that feeling of dread hit me and I refused. No way I'm putting myself in even greater danger.
I know the reality is thing will likely be fine in both situations. Then I remember multiple women telling lies in my life, accusing me of things I never did.
I had to go to court and has her admit on stand she lied. I almost went to jail and she got off Scott free. That isn't justice.
With how much more weight women's voices get and how much favourably the justice system views women compared to men. Yeah no, fuck that, I will not put myself in a situation where a woman can tell another lie to ruin another life.
lol @ these ridiculous fever dreams of an incel. We both know none of that ever happened.
Okay.
did it to themselves by punishing men who shouldnt be punished because to push an agenda to much
I cannot imagine hating anything as much as you incels hate women. Pathetic.