top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 334 points 2 years ago (16 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 127 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 102 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 231 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn't given consent.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 125 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Yeah but the mob around me watching me touch her breasts might not know that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (11 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 54 points 2 years ago (31 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • load more comments (30 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 164 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    Bystander: She's apneic and has no pulse! I'm beginning CPR!

    Commences compressions

    Patient: Uh actually I have a boyfriend

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 120 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (21 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 111 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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 ...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Was it illegal there to touch a woman while wearing shorts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 87 points 2 years ago (20 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    If I saw someone with a defibrillator ripping the clothes off an unconscious woman, I don't think I would suspect foul play.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 80 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    You might not, but you gotta remember that the public is also filled with idiots

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Imagine dying because some old puritan assholes decided at some point that female nips are inherently offensive but male nips are fine. Humanity can be so idiotic sometimes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 74 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 73 points 2 years ago* (12 children)

    52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 53 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    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 🙄

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 42 points 2 years ago

    Makes sense, you could save their life and catch a case.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Having a one in 4 chance that you won't get CPR If you collapse in public is a disturbing statistic.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›