Refusing CPR

[mrsCALoki]

pardon me? its just quite obvious, to anyone able to think one iota passed their pre-conceived notions, that they are entirely different people.

I was teasing,

You said "its painfully obvious to any ignoramus that simon is not hedge hog", and you were saying it was obvious to you.......

But being serious, you might be right. Although the words are very close to the ones his "I do not want to get banned again" nicks have used in the past.

But.... shrug

 

[SchlongConery]

Well said, 'Doctor'.

I am not familiar with the titled protocols. Is it Doctor Captain or Captain Doctor?

 

[mrsCALoki]

I am not familiar with the titled protocols. Is it Doctor Captain or Captain Doctor?

Is he a captain? I thought he was a capital and stood heads and shoulders above the other letters?

 

[fuji]

A Four Star Genital.

 

[dtjohnst]

I know that if the average person start CPR you are legally obliged to continue until relieved by a qualified person or a doctor declares them dead but there is no obligation for a person to start. Don't know if this applies to medical professionals. it is also possible that the deceased had requested not being resuscitated.

That's not true. You may stop if you became physically exhausted and are unable to continue, you see apparent signs of death (rigor mortis for example), the person regains consciousness, you're instructed to by a responder (police/paramedic/firefighter), an AED is applied, someone known to be the legal guardian tells you to stop, etc. The only thing you are absolutely forbidden from doing is leaving the scene until advised you can by an authority once you start CPR.

 

[Aardvark154]

That's not true. You may stop if you became physically exhausted and are unable to continue, you see apparent signs of death (rigor mortis for example), the person regains consciousness, you're instructed to by a responder (police/paramedic/firefighter), an AED is applied, someone known to be the legal guardian tells you to stop, etc. The only thing you are absolutely forbidden from doing is leaving the scene until advised you can by an authority once you start CPR.

It gets complicated. Unless you wish to get into loads of trouble, you cannot make less than a good faith effort. e.g. no three minutes and saying I'm exhausted.

 

[mrsCALoki]

It gets complicated, without getting into loads of trouble, you cannot make less than a good faith effort.

And ethics class says legal professionals must follow that as well. Well somewhat more than a "good faith effort" though. LOL Mal practise kicks in on "good effort".

 

[blackrock13]

That's not true. You may stop if you became physically exhausted and are unable to continue, you see apparent signs of death (rigor mortis for example), the person regains consciousness, you're instructed to by a responder (police/paramedic/firefighter), an AED is applied, someone known to be the legal guardian tells you to stop, etc. The only thing you are absolutely forbidden from doing is leaving the scene until advised you can by an authority once you start CPR.

Somebody knows his shit. Couldn't have said it better, but since early sign of rigor starts around a minimum of ~2 hours that would be a superhuman effort.

 

[Aardvark154]

And ethics class says legal professionals must follow that as well. Well somewhat more than a "good faith effort" though. LOL Mal practise kicks in on "good effort".

Indeed although, although I suspect you intended to write medical. Actually the Bar Rules go much further than what you wrote.

 

[dtjohnst]

It gets complicated. Unless you wish to get into loads of trouble, you cannot make less than a good faith effort. e.g. no three minutes and saying I'm exhausted.

I don't think a cop or paramedic or a child's parent saying "stop", even if it's over a phone, is complicated. And I'd argue that starting is a good-faith effort. You propose no one is required to start, but anyone that does is doomed to doing it until infinity. I'm simply proposing that's whack logic. What if 3 minutes after you start thunder and lightning starts and you're under a tree? If you're not legally required to start, there's not a lot the courts will do if you choose to stop. Is the investment required to prosecute worth the payoff?

I know they teach such nonsense because that's in accordance with the strictest letter of the law, but they want to encourage people to make any effort, not discourage them so they prefer to make none at all rather than face potential prosecution.

Edited due to autocorrect being a douchebag.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Indeed although, although I suspect you intended to write medical. Actually the Bar Rules go much further than what you wrote.

I must be even more tired than I feel. A bunch of words that were in my head are missing 'legal requirements for medical professionals"

 

[dtjohnst]

Somebody knows his shit. Couldn't have said it better, but since early sign of rigor starts around a minimum of ~2 hours that would be a superhuman effort.

I relieved a guy after 45 mins, went for an hour myself. Skin was pale when I started but we went through till rigor. We'd already lost 3 guys, we weren't giving up on anyone else. Let's just say when someone double-feeds a mortar, the results aren't pretty.

 

[Aardvark154]

I know they teach such nonsense because that's in accordance with the strictest letter of the law

Have it your way. Take the free advice that your effort has to be what others would consider a "good faith" effort, or pay someone to represent you. My rest is going to be peaceful in either event.


p.s. I wrote nothing about until infinity.

 

[dtjohnst]

Have it your way. Take the free advice that your effort has to be what others would consider a "good faith" effort, or pay someone to represent you. My rest is going to be peaceful in either event.


p.s. I wrote nothing about until infinity.

I think anyone who doesn't make a good faith effort is a miserable human being deserving of whatever comes their way. We're talking about saving human life here. Therefore, if someone thanks they've done all they can, if they assume after 20 mins the person is probably gone, and they want to stop, I don't see why they shouldn't. My point is that the original post implied it was better to never start because then you're stuck. I'm trying to clarify that so people aren't so scared of jail they just don't bother helping. I see that as counter-productive to a society.

Imagine your loved one collapses. Someone who read the post does nothing for fear of being held liable because they started. Your loved one dies. In a parallel universe, that same person does it for three minutes and just as they are about to give up, your loved one is resuscitated.

Which do you prefer now? That people do nothing or that people try for 3 minutes?

Your advice is useless to me. I've already stated I've done an hour of CPR on at least one corpse. I think I've established I go beyond what most consider good faith. And in good faith, I'm trying to encourage people to make an effort, not stand back because there's a minuscule chance they'll end up in court.

I don't know what the intention was with the original post I replied to, but I can't believe dissuading people, and if you retread things with a unbiased view I think you'll see that's exactly what the original posts did, is in good faith, is helpful, or is beneficial in any way. I'm telling you, flat out, as someone who has done A LOT of first aid AND has been in court a lot AND carried a badge for several years, that giving up when doing CPR has a very, very, very slim chance of getting you charged. Like I said, the system isn't designed to discourage people from helping, it's designed to encourage and protect them. It may not always work that way, but it mostly does.

And I'm aware you didn't say infinity. I used poetic license to make a point.

 

[mrsCALoki]

I think anyone who doesn't make a good faith effort is a miserable human being deserving of whatever comes their way. We're talking about saving human life here. Therefore, if someone thanks they've done all they can, if they assume after 20 mins the person is probably gone, and they want to stop, I don't see why they shouldn't. My point is that the original post implied it was better to never start because then you're stuck. I'm trying to clarify that so people aren't so scared of jail they just don't bother helping. I see that as counter-productive to a society.

Imagine your loved one collapses. Someone who read the post does nothing for fear of being held liable because they started. Your loved one dies. In a parallel universe, that same person does it for three minutes and just as they are about to give up, your loved one is resuscitated.

Which do you prefer now? That people do nothing or that people try for 3 minutes?

Your advice is useless to me. I've already stated I've done an hour of CPR on at least one corpse. I think I've established I go beyond what most consider good faith. And in good faith, I'm trying to encourage people to make an effort, not stand back because there's a minuscule chance they'll end up in court.

I don't know what the intention was with the original post I replied to, but I can't believe dissuading people, and if you retread things with a unbiased view I think you'll see that's exactly what the original posts did, is in good faith, is helpful, or is beneficial in any way. I'm telling you, flat out, as someone who has done A LOT of first aid AND has been in court a lot AND carried a badge for several years, that giving up when doing CPR has a very, very, very slim chance of getting you charged. Like I said, the system isn't designed to discourage people from helping, it's designed to encourage and protect them. It may not always work that way, but it mostly does.

And I'm aware you didn't say infinity. I used poetic license to make a point.

You are right. But knowing the law is also important.

Are you familiar with the odds?

These are paraphrased 2012 numbers, say +/- 3%.

Chance of surviving a cardiac arrest without assistance ...... 0%
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with traditional CPR ..... 7 %
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with compression only CPR ..... 14 %
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with compression only CPR and a AED ..... 40 %

Add O2 for ventilation and you are way over 50%.

speed is critical, survival rate drops every minute lost.

question..... why would any man over 50 not spend a few thousand to have one handy ?

 

[dtjohnst]

You are right. But knowing the law is also important.

Are you familiar with the odds?

These are paraphrased 2012 numbers, say +/- 3%.

Chance of surviving a cardiac arrest without assistance ...... 0%
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with traditional CPR ..... 7 %
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with compression only CPR ..... 14 %
Chance of surviving (with out a medical professional handy) with compression only CPR and a AED ..... 40 %

Add O2 for ventilation and you are way over 50%.

speed is critical, survival rate drops every minute lost.

question..... why would any man over 50 not spend a few thousand to have one handy ?

Trying to know the law without training is like trying to know first aid without training. Law in Canada is codified, sure, but it's largely based on case law and precedent. You do your best, you behave as a decent human being and you generally get the benefit of the doubt (emphasis on generally). But if you think you can know every law you're expected to obey, you're either extremely arrogant in your abilities or extremely ignorant regarding how many there are. Not to mention every case changes the law a little more. I worked the beat for 7 years, spent months in court, sat through countless briefings and training seminars, researched on my spare time because I wanted to be the best I could...if I knew 10% of the law at my peek, I'd be surprised.

I say again: why discourage people from helping others? What good does that do? And realize that the legal system exists to do good hence half the sections in the criminal code and constitution that give courts outs and cops judgement. Is it codified that you're liable if you stop CPR without a good reason? Yes. Will you ever be found guilty? Only if you're a complete idiot who gets on the stand and says something like you stopped because you were worried you'd break a nail. If you actually stopped for that reason, you deserve to go to jail.

I realize some people are really good with google, but that doesn't make one an expert on law. And I'm telling you that discouraging people from doing CPR because they might be liable simply so one may sound smart or because one likes to argue on the Internet (and I see no other reasons for these posts that do just that) is inane.

If I have a heart attack and someone wants to do 90 seconds of CPR on me but no more, I want them to do it. Not think, "Nah, not worth the risk of jail." Frankly, I don't care what the odds are because some CPR is better than no CPR if I'm lying on the ground with a stopped heart. It could be 100000% better or it could be 0.0000001% better, but better is better. And I've seen people do half-assed first aid many times and never seen a single person get charged. I don't care what a statute says about it, that's the reality of it.

 

[dtjohnst]

I noticed some people like stats. CPR doubles or triples the chance of survival, but less than 1/3 of people get CPR from bystanders even when there are bystanders there. And if people read some of the posts in this thread, I bet that goes down. So please, someone explain to me why people are trying to discourage people from doing CPR?!?

 

[mrsCALoki]

I noticed some people like stats. CPR doubles or triples the chance of survival, but less than 1/3 of people get CPR from bystanders even when there are bystanders there. And if people read some of the posts in this thread, I bet that goes down. So please, someone explain to me why people are trying to discourage people from doing CPR?!?

Well I hope my MSG was clear and straight forward. If someone is conscious and/or breathing CPR is not appropriate. I thought it was simple. Also ask before applying any First Aid. NO means NO

 

[dtjohnst]

Well I hope my MSG was clear and straight forward. If someone is conscious and/or breathing CPR is not appropriate. I thought it was simple. Also ask before applying any First Aid. NO means NO

Sure. And don't apply a tourniquet to a paper cut. But that's covered in training. I'm talking about fear-mongering about going to jail or being sued for stopping CPR and implying it's better to simply not start, I've never commented on your posts about CPR while breathing or rescue ventilation not being CPR...so I'm not sure what makes you think that's what I'm talking about.

 

[fuji]

Well I hope my MSG was clear and straight forward. If someone is conscious and/or breathing CPR is not appropriate. I thought it was simple. Also ask before applying any First Aid. NO means NO

You made a clear statement that CPR should not be delivered to someone with a pulse and that it was very important to check for that. Since it's turned out that you didn't have a clue what you are talking about, you are pretending that all you ever said was check for respiration, which is a true thing. But I quoted your original statement, it's there for all to see.