I know what you are saying at the same time doing CPR on someone who has merely fainted is a great way to kill them because you didn't bother to see if they were still breathing.
Refusing CPR
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
- Status
No duty to rescue if you aren't a medical professional. So I guess it turned out she wasn't.
However as mentioned several times before - all of this could have been avoided if what the daughter is saying is true by merely having had a DNR order on file at the Retirement Home.
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/pubs/pdf/DNRForm.pdf
What the Ontario DNR form looks like:
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/...leAttach/014-4519-45~3/$File/TXT_4519-45E.htm
If the person is breathing there's no reason to do CPR, it's a no brainer. It's also often much easier to check for their breathing than find a pulse.
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."
I think I remember something about identifying yourself to the victim and asking them a question as part of the Red Cross one.
Here's the thing -- except perhaps for doctors, everybody else in the medical world follows protocols that someone else has already established. First aiders, EMT's, even nurses don't sit around thinking about the theoretical aspects of a situation. They are trained to follow protocols, a pre-determined decision tree leading to specific actions under specific conditions.
The current protocol for first aiders is NOT to check for pulse. You do check for respiration, in fact, you should be checking for an airway obstruction before doing anything else. Having established that you are not dealing with an airway problem then if there's no respiration, and the person is unconscious, you start CPR.
The old protocols used to say check for a pulse, but that has been removed from the updated protocols. The reason why is that there are very few cases where there is no airway obstruction, someone has a pulse, but is not breathing. Those cases are rare compared to the number of people who die while a first aider tries to find a pulse in a high stress situation under non-ideal conditions. Was that a pulse? Or a twich? Or was it just me being nervous? People die on the ground while the first aider is trying to figure it out, who could have been saved if they immediately start CPR.
So the modern protocols say go directly to CPR after finding that the casualty is not breathing and has no detectable airway obstruction.
P.S. - MrsC's responses are a bit suspicious in that they were all written from a theoretical perspective whereas anyone with medical training would write from a protocol / established practice perspective, for something as well studied as CPR and cardiac issues in general.
You can't perform any medical procedure on anyone unless they consent so the first step in any first aid protocol is always something like, "I know first aid, can I help you?" However, an unconscious/unresponsive person is always assumed to consent to a life saving intervention.
For example, if you have a choking victim, who can't breath, and you ask if you can help and they shake their head and wave you off, you have to stand back and wait. Once they pass out and are unconscious, then you can intervene, because an unconscious person is assumed to consent, even though just a few moments earlier they were a non-consenting conscious person.
Fuji, you are forgetting one thing: how would Ms Cocki identify? In a femine voice? A deep male voice? A moderate male voice? The choices are endless.
People who have learned professional or academic research skills tend to change the way they write, even when they are not being marked.
As Colt so eloquently pointed out, your writing style is the antithesis of being formally educated in university level research.
And as I pointed out, your writing style is remarkably like the now silent LordLoki.
Hey turkey, I offered you a bet in the other thread. Why don't you just accept the bet and prove something instead of making these pointless accusations.
Reality exists beyond your mind. Lets make it real
Wanna bet I am me?Simopn you promised not to talk to me earlier. Are you not a man of your word?
Are you calling yourself an ignoramus? How many of Simon's alter egos did you talk to by the way? Just to confirm the breath of your knowledge?
Frankly you might be right. I have no proof. I find it not credible though that he just arrived on the scene and poofed into the conversations.
pardon me? its just quite obvious, to anyone able to think one iota passed their pre-conceived notions, that they are entirely different people.
- Status
