CPR and the Heimlich maneuver

[Ezri]

We were visiting my aunt for Easter and while we were eating my sister started coughing and I jokingly asked her if she needed the heimlich manuvre, she said no and then proceeded to tell me that it's illegal to perform CPR or the Heimlich manuvre on someone if you aren't properly trained to do it. I know that even proper CPR can cause fractured ribs, but my mom says that even if you don't know the proper technique but you do it anyway and save someone's life in the process no one is going to press charges. Is it true that the Heimlich manuvre is illegal if you aren't properly trained?

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by Ezri

We were visiting my aunt for Easter and while we were eating my sister started coughing and I jokingly asked her if she needed the heimlich manuvre, she said no and then proceeded to tell me that it's illegal to perform CPR or the Heimlich manuvre on someone if you aren't properly trained to do it. I know that even proper CPR can cause fractured ribs, but my mom says that even if you don't know the proper technique but you do it anyway and save someone's life in the process no one is going to press charges. Is it true that the Heimlich manuvre is illegal if you aren't properly trained?

It's not a matter of being legal. However, I'm pretty sure if you are uncertified and you do CPR on someone and injure them, you can be held liable and sued. Even if you do it right, you can break bones in the rib cage area.

I have no idea about the Heimlic maneuver - there's no certification for that as far as I know. It's also probably a lot harder to hurt someone that way, but I imagine if you did you could be held liable and sued.

But I'm almost positive it's not illegal in the sense that it's against any law - just that you can potentially be sued for damages if you do any harm, especially if you do CPR and are uncertified.

Then again, I could be wrong on this - I know little about law, but those are my impressions and I'm reasonably sure they're correct.

[geminilee]

From this site:

Can I get sued if I perform CPR?

You theoretically could but there has never been a successful suit brought against someone performing CPR.

[KKHB]

Most states have a "Good Samaritan Law", the wording of which varies but is typically:

Any person who, in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance.

found here: http://www.momsteam.com/alpha/featur...tan_laws.shtml

[Esprise Me]

I was certified in CPR and the Heimlich maneuver by the Red Cross many years ago, when I used to babysit. Our instructors always emphasized the importance of doing something, even if you're not 100% sure you're doing it right. We learned about "crowd mentality," how people are reluctant to get involved in an emergency because they're not sure what to do or they think someone else will step in. We were explicitly told that, while it was best to keep ourselves current, if we let our certification lapse (it's only good for about 2 years, as I recall) we should not let that stop us from intervening in an emergency.

I could see someone trying to press charges on the grounds that their ribs were broken by someone performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver, but I can't see them winning over a jury unless they can somehow prove intent.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

I was certified in CPR and the Heimlich maneuver by the Red Cross many years ago, when I used to babysit. Our instructors always emphasized the importance of doing something, even if you're not 100% sure you're doing it right. We learned about "crowd mentality," how people are reluctant to get involved in an emergency because they're not sure what to do or they think someone else will step in. We were explicitly told that, while it was best to keep ourselves current, if we let our certification lapse (it's only good for about 2 years, as I recall) we should not let that stop us from intervening in an emergency.

I could see someone trying to press charges on the grounds that their ribs were broken by someone performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver, but I can't see them winning over a jury unless they can somehow prove intent.

I had to be CPR certified by Red Cross in order to be at a GS cookie booth with girls who were not accompanied by their parents *eyeroll at yet another ridiculously overprotective local girl scout thing but that's besides the point*

They told us the same thing too, about doing something is better than nothing.

They also told us that if the person is conscious still, to say to them "I have been certified in CPR, do you wish me to help you?" and they will nod or their eyeballs will explode or whatever, to indicate consent.

And they also did say we were protected by the Good Sam law and had copies for us of the laws for our states. (we have two here, border town.)

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

They told us the same thing too, about doing something is better than nothing.

Isn't that kind of obvious? Except for in rare, extreme DNR cases it is better to do something which might succeed, than to do nothing. A chance to live, however small, is better than certain death due to choking or respiratory failure. Even if something gets broken in the process... broken ribs heal if you are alive for them to. If I were the one laying on the floor, I know i would take small odds over no odds in a heartbeat.

[Em]

While I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, I don't think the Heimlich maneuver has been the recommended first aid for choking for quite some time. We were specifically told not to use it in every first aid class I've taken since at least 1997.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Em

While I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, I don't think the Heimlich maneuver has been the recommended first aid for choking for quite some time. We were specifically told not to use it in every first aid class I've taken since at least 1997.

So, what are you supposed to do instead?

[marrya]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

They also told us that if the person is conscious still, to say to them "I have been certified in CPR, do you wish me to help you?" and they will nod or their eyeballs will explode or whatever, to indicate consent.

Whereas I've always been told:
If a person is still conscious and/or has a pulse, you should never begin CPR [which, in this context I am translating as "begin chest compressions"] for the simple reason that you could stop their heart.

[niner]

Originally Posted by marrya

Whereas I've always been told:
If a person is still conscious and/or has a pulse, you should never begin CPR [which, in this context I am translating as "begin chest compressions"] for the simple reason that you could stop their heart.

And similarly, if you ask someone if they're choking and need help, and they gasp "yes", don't do the Heimlich. Speaking indicates the airway is still partially open, and you can wait for more precise medical care. Of course, if the person goes unconscious, then you can move to the Heimlich (or whatever they call the unconscious variety.)

Henry

[Mycroft]

In the UK there are several organisations who can train first aiders (and also provide first aiders for events), the largest being St John's Ambulance and the Red Cross. I know someone who had his SJA training certification revoked for advising somebody that in an emergency doing something is better than doing nothing.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Em

While I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, I don't think the Heimlich maneuver has been the recommended first aid for choking for quite some time. We were specifically told not to use it in every first aid class I've taken since at least 1997.

Funny, the class that I just took (CPR/First Aid) specifically told us that we are to do it if someone is choking. Even gave us illustrations, and taught us how to do it.

(By the Red Cross.)

For CPR, we were told to do it if the person isn't breathing, and is unconcious on the floor. Apparently, the chest compressions aren't enough to really mess with the heart's natural rhythm. We were not told to check for a pulse.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

In the UK there are several organisations who can train first aiders (and also provide first aiders for events), the largest being St John's Ambulance and the Red Cross. I know someone who had his SJA training certification revoked for advising somebody that in an emergency doing something is better than doing nothing.

I have to agree. "Doing something", when you do not have enough training can often exacerbate the situation. The most obvious example being trying to help someone to their feet when they have a neck injury - you're doing something, but it's completely the wrong thing!

[Anyte]

Originally Posted by Em

While I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, I don't think the Heimlich maneuver has been the recommended first aid for choking for quite some time. We were specifically told not to use it in every first aid class I've taken since at least 1997.

Perhaps 1997 is when they were forbidden from using the phrase "Heimlich maneuver"? We call it "abdominal thrusts" now. Same thing, as far as I know. In our classes, we're taught that for choking, and CPR, with chest compressions, for any downed individual who is not breathing.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

I have to agree. "Doing something", when you do not have enough training can often exacerbate the situation. The most obvious example being trying to help someone to their feet when they have a neck injury - you're doing something, but it's completely the wrong thing!

But you are assuming in the broken neck situation that the person is safe from further injury where they are. If you change your example to a person who is in imminent danger of death where they are at (say they are on a set of train tracks when a train is coming) then moving them would be preferable to doing nothing. In the case of choking or respiratory arrest the person will die without help. How can you make it worse? Worse than dead?

[KKHB]

Originally Posted by geminilee

If you change your example to a person who is in imminent danger of death where they are at (say they are on a set of train tracks when a train is coming) then moving them would be preferable to doing nothing.

In the case of suspected (or even just possible) neck or back injury, the advice is always do not move them. That is a situation where doing something can be more harmful than doing nothing. But that is (or should be) always tempered with common sense. Moving the victim from the path of an oncoming train, regardless of possible injuries is kind of a no-brainer, don't you think? Even an untrained person would (should) do this.

The "doing something is sometimes more harmful than doing nothing" stance is very true, but really only applies to situations where the victim is breathing or is otherwise not in imminent danger of death should treatment be delayed. As you say, there's not much worse you can do than dead. Any injuries you cause or worsen (unintentionally and without gross negligence) will be insignificant when compared to the alternative, and will not be actionable (or liable) under the Good Samaritan laws.

[Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Funny, the class that I just took (CPR/First Aid) specifically told us that we are to do it if someone is choking. Even gave us illustrations, and taught us how to do it.

The current American Red Cross method advises five strong blows between the shoulder blades, followed by five quick Heimlich-style abdominal thrusts, and this is to be cycled through until the person can breathe or loses consciousness, in which case you move on to rescue breathing and CPR. (Always call 911 before CPR because you cannot stop.)

For CPR, we were told to do it if the person isn't breathing, and is unconcious on the floor. Apparently, the chest compressions aren't enough to really mess with the heart's natural rhythm. We were not told to check for a pulse.

Yes, this surprised me. Apparently the likelihood of identifying a pulse or lack of pulse is so low that the American Red Cross decided you have a better chance of keeping the person alive if you don't waste your time looking for it.

Recommended CPR and First Aid methods change as the organizations that teach them learn from real-life studies.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by marrya

Whereas I've always been told:
If a person is still conscious and/or has a pulse, you should never begin CPR [which, in this context I am translating as "begin chest compressions"] for the simple reason that you could stop their heart.

I believe I misstated and I should have said, that if someone is CHOKING and conscious, that you can ask them. Thanks for the catch. ~choking and not able to breath at all, that is.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Alchemy

Recommended CPR and First Aid methods change as the organizations that teach them learn from real-life studies.

I had to have it every single year the whole time I was doing scouts: and every single year they changed it.

Actually it keeps getting simpler. Which is probably good. I think the last time I took it, they had tossed out all the different counts for infants, children and adults, and just use the same one for everyone - but they told us that in another month they were going to change it to just doing chest compressions, not even doing mouth to mouth at all, because apparently they have discovered they get better results from just doing the compressions. Doesn't make much sense intuitively but if they have found it to be true, I'll take their word for it. *shrug* Although I kind of think, if they keep changing their mind, no matter what I do they'll figure out it wasn't the best way anyway so I might as well just do whatever seems sensible.