Refusing CPR

[SchlongConery]

Looks like you and your comrade got tired of beating up toughb and Mrs CAloki so its my turn again, eh?

Lighten up and get laid. Just having some fun with ya! If you can't take it, say so and I'll stop. Besides I never said anything to toughb. I think he is clogging up Fred's board with so many individual posts but I like the pics! Never hear me complaining about naked girls!

You should try them sometimes!

 

[Rockslinger]

Lighten up and get laid. Just having some fun with ya!

I know. I would have inserted "hee, hee, hee" in my post but that might have offended a couple of anal retentive jerks. Anyway, I think this thread has run its course. If your local hockey rink or nursing home doesn't have an AED, ask them to get one, it could save your life, or more importantly your favourite SP's life. Peace (or is it piece?).

Don't tell your comrade, but I'm off to the Sports and Business Forums.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Rock you perform CPR until you have an AED, then you use it. If the heart is beating an AED will NOT SHOCK THE PERSON. The AED is a very clever little machine.

http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=36578&tid=001


just called my local red cross. Performing chest compressions on a person who's heart is beating is not ideal... in fact compressions are NEVER ideal... but neither is death, so you do them anyways. Please read below:

Wow all this from a woman who did not even know what ventilation was a few posts ago! And now she is an expert.

OK, first off, yes she is right, quoted pretty much word for word Canadian Red Crosses existing official position. Both forms of CPR are equally good

They upgrade their protocols every 5 years.

After the change to "either is ok" in 2010 we have enough data to evaluate that decision based on facts. Pretty much the same results have been found from everywhere from Japan to the UK.

For example: Taku Iwami (Kyoto University Health Service, Japan published results that concluded: "The present study suggests that the combination of early defibrillation with public-access AEDs and [chest-compression-only] CPR by bystanders is the best way to save lives after sudden cardiac arrests,"

By the way from the same study: "After accounting for confounders, patients who received chest-compression-only CPR were 33% more likely to achieve these outcomes than those given traditional CPR". and "Shorter time between arrest and first shock also improved patients chances for a good outcome, by 7% for each minute reduction."

Interesting that this contradicted the Nara Medical University School of Medicine, Department of Public Health, Health Management and Policy paper published a year earlier.

Nara Medical University School of Medicine, Department of Public Health, Health Management and Policy

Note that these results were based on CPR compression AND AED, But even though the survival rate is much lower without the AED http://heart.arizona.edu/cpr-advances found that a

"significantly greater percentage of cardiac arrest victims survived in the
chest-compression-only CPR group (13.3 percent) compared to those in the
conventional CPR group (7.8 percent)."

So what? You can follow the advice of Red Cross based on 2008 atudies and expect 'similar results' either way, or you can decide to use Compression CPR and expect a 13% survival rate.

FYI their is another side to all this. It assumes a "lay person" is doing the CPR, it assumes directions re being provided typically by EMT, and it applies "for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest ". That is not the only reason people collapse.


Ok off my soap box

Of the point of all this.... facts are facts Get an AED. think about it. 40% chance of surviving a cardiac arrest vs .... well being dead.

Maybe you guys should insist all SPs be certified in Compression CPR ?

 

[mrsCALoki]

Since no one else mentioned it, I guess I should.

The medical community is far from united in their position with respect to compressing a beating heart. People like the Sarver Heart Centre have different position; "they recommend following the "Better safe than sorry" approach and begin chest compressions. It is better to perform a few unnecessary chest compressions for someone with a beating heart, rather than withhold chest compressions and circulation from someone in cardiac arrest."

It seems to depend a lot on what the doctor making the comments specialty is. It is a trade off and both are calculated risks.

Only an insane fool would start applying Compression CPR on someone able to communicate or even respond.
Most experts advice against it if you can tell the subject is breathing.
The Arizona contingent says if in doubt do it.
Everyone says go for it if the subject is in cardiac arrest.

By the way even the Sarver people have a protocol for it:

How do you know if it’s primary cardiac arrest?

The person is fine one moment and you suddenly see or hear them collapse.
You then check for responsiveness by “shaking and shouting” (are you alright?) and rub the sternum with your knuckles. This helps to determine whether the person had some other reason for the event or if they are indeed in cardiac arrest. If you have no response you should assume that the person has experienced cardiac arrest.


So was I BSing? No. I accept that cracked and broken bones can be treated more easily than dead. I just cannot imagine ever applying CPR to a very elderly woman who is still breathing. It is not acceptable.

 

[colt]

For example: Taku Iwami (Kyoto University Health Service, Japan published results that concluded: "The present study suggests that the combination of early defibrillation with public-access AEDs and [chest-compression-only] CPR by bystanders is the best way to save lives after sudden cardiac arrests,"

By the way from the same study: "After accounting for confounders, patients who received chest-compression-only CPR were 33% more likely to achieve these outcomes than those given traditional CPR". and "Shorter time between arrest and first shock also improved patients chances for a good outcome, by 7% for each minute reduction."

You know, for someone who incessenantly brags about her high level research skills it really is shocking how little you know about quoting and attribution.

You're above-noted quotations are not "from the same study". They are the words of an independent author who wrote ABOUT the study. I know you will say I am playing "word games" and being a "terb arguer" but anyone who has taken even a single year of post secondary studies would understand what putting quotes around words mean. If you were not suggesting that you were quoting directly from the study there would be no reason for the quotes - you would just paraphrase, as the author in the original article did. But you did use quotation marks, immediately preceded by the phrase "from the same study". The results may very well be from the study but that particular arrangement of words was not from the study, they were from an article written about the study.

When you cannot appreciate the difference between the words from an actual study and the words an indepenent author writes ABOUT the study you will have to understand why people doubt your bona fides.

Happy reading: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...andarde28099-for-bystander-resuscitation.aspx

You will note the author of the article did not put quotation marks around the exceprts you did - because they were not quoting from the study, they were paraphrasing. People who really know about research both know, and respect, the difference.

 

[mrsCALoki]

You know, for someone who incessenantly brags about her high level research skills it really is shocking how little you know about quoting and attribution.

You're above-noted quotations are not "from the same study". They are the words of an independent author who wrote ABOUT the study. I know you will say I am playing "word games" and being a "terb arguer" but anyone who has taken even a single year of post secondary studies would understand what putting quotes around words mean. If you were not suggesting that you were quoting directly from the study there would be no reason for the quotes - you would just paraphrase, as the author in the original article did. But you did use quotation marks, immediately preceded by the phrase "from the same study". The results may very well be from the study but that particular arrangement of words was not from the study, they were from an article written about the study.

When you cannot appreciate the difference between the words from an actual study and the words an indepenent author writes ABOUT the study you will have to understand why people doubt your bona fides.

Happy reading: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...andarde28099-for-bystander-resuscitation.aspx

You will note the author of the article did not put quotation marks around the exceprts you did - because they were not quoting from the study, they were paraphrasing. People who really know about research both know, and respect, the difference.

and someone would care when posting on a sex trade board because..... why?

Was the information accurate? yes

If I do not give a royal flying fuck about spelling you think I would care about quoting convention?

LOL you really do have a pickle up your ass don't you? For god sake grow up

 

[Goober Mcfly]

LOL you really do have a pickle up your ass don't you? For god sake grow up

Just checking something...

BLACK!

 

[Ed Thomas]

I call bullshit on policy. The nurse simply didn't want to put her own mouth anywhere the patient's.

 

[blackrock13]

I call bullshit on policy. The nurse simply didn't want to put her own mouth anywhere the patient's.

There are mouthpieces for that concern now, but MTM plays such a minor roll in CPR now, I doubt it.

 

[Butler1000]

(Munch, munch, munch)

Damn when we lost simon and troops I thought things would get slow....

(Munch, munch, munch)

All it did was to bring out a lot more, and hot damn are they good!

(Munch, munch, munch)

Glass of red Jess?

(Munch, munch, munch)

 

[Celticman]

colt. my hero. Your verbal ass kicking is hugely arousing. Goddam.

The man is not to be messed with. I think colt's handle needs to change to Colt 45.

 

[Celticman]

(Munch, munch, munch)

Damn when we lost simon and troops I thought things would get slow....

(Munch, munch, munch)

All it did was to bring out a lot more, and hot damn are they good!

(Munch, munch, munch)

Nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[Smash]

You know, for someone who incessenantly brags about her high level research skills it really is shocking how little you know about quoting and attribution.

When you cannot appreciate the difference between the words from an actual study and the words an indepenent author writes ABOUT the study you will have to understand why people doubt your bona fides.

Happy reading: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...andarde28099-for-bystander-resuscitation.aspx

You will note the author of the article did not put quotation marks around the exceprts you did - because they were not quoting from the study, they were paraphrasing. People who really know about research both know, and respect, the difference.

LOL Game, set, match

 

[mrsCALoki]

There are mouthpieces for that concern now, but MTM plays such a minor roll in CPR now, I doubt it.

Well if you are taking Ed's comment seriously....

If not providing medical support was not the facilities policy, they would have hung the employee out to dry.

 

[mrsCALoki]

The man is not to be messed with. I think colt's handle needs to change to Colt 45.

Wow you really think that faulting me for not using a formal structure for quotations on sex trade board shows intelligence ?

AS I read his words I was thinking.....

"colt [kohlt] Show IPA
noun
1. a young male animal of the horse family.
2. a male horse of not more than four years of age.
3. a young or inexperienced person."

and WOW it fits so well !

That seemed almost as sad and silly as the spelling Nazis.

But I guess everyone need to find at least something they can feel good at.

Oh by the way. Putting items lifted from other sources in quotes is the appropriate style and required in papers. Dahhhh that is why the passage is in quotes. I did not reference the comment in the " ", and that was indeed incorrect. My bad. The anal fixated pony caught it. Does anyone really care?

I would put a foot note for the above however I was never taught how to put footnotes on Terb, and have no desire to do so (see lack of pickle in the ass behavior)

LOL

 

[Nate1]

Wow . . . and WOW it fits so well . . . (see lack of pickle in the ass behavior)

Seems contradictory.

 

[Aardvark154]

I just cannot imagine ever applying CPR to a very elderly woman who is still breathing. It is not acceptable.

Well as we discussed above, I was taught (although I will admit it was several years ago) - You never perform CPR on someone who has a pulse. It is given that anyone who is breathing on their own has a pulse.

 

[Aardvark154]

You know, for someone who incessenantly brags about her high level research skills it really is shocking how little you know about quoting and attribution.

So here on TERB, which would you prefer that we all be mandated to use: The Chicago Manuel of Style, or The Times Style and Usage Guide, oh I know perhaps The Guardian Style Guide?

 

[Rockslinger]

The police have said that no charges will be laid.

 

[fuji]

But you need to be very certain the heart has stopped.

Sorry but this claim directly contradicts the current protocol. Too many people died while the first aider was farting around trying to find a pulse.