529
Women are less likely to receive CPR in public than men: Study
(www.yahoo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
529 points (95.4% liked)
News
35749 readers
2353 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.