"no kissing" CPR advert what do you think?

[ratter71 10]

If you have read the my first post,and post 49 you will see that i provided links and clearly stated what the thread referred to,but did ask for views.Many posts have provided informative contributions,including your own.

If people have become confused i am sorry for opening this thread. it is probably true some posts have been misleading,though well intentioned. It would have been preferrable though if people had read through the thread before posting comments.

I can sometimes be flippant,but i do take this topic seriously and i have reason for feeling strongly about it.

I will state again that the thread is a reference to the Vinnie Jones advert,in conjuction with the British Heart Foundation.

I am happy to leave it to the discretion of the Mods to decide wether the thread should be closed.

 

 

Why would mods close the thread? Whilst there has been some misinformation on this thread it has a) highlighted the campaign b) highlighted how little some people know about emergency aid.

 

From the resus council:

 

Telephone-advised compression-only CPR

When EMS response times are short (less than 5 min), there is some evidence that

compression-only CPR produces at least equivalent outcomes to conventional CPR

(chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth ventilation).14 In adults, telephone-advised

compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) produces better survival rates

than conventional CPR.19, 19a, 28, 30 Rescuers may be more willing to give resuscitation if

they do not have to provide ventilation.34 In children 70% of out-of-hospital cardiac

arrests are asphyxial in origin and survival rates are better if they are provided with both

chest compressions and ventilations.21 However, after cardiac arrest from a primary

cardiac cause, even in children there is no difference in survival after compression-only

or conventional CPR – either technique produces better survival rates than no CPR.21

Telephone-advised CPR guidelines should provide instruction in compression-only CPR

for both adults and children because it is quicker and easier to describe.35 A rescuer

receiving telephone advice is unlikely to provide effective ventilation and this would

simply delay effective chest compressions.

 

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/prehosca.pdf

 

Provides a response to one poster near the start of the thread who described the ad as "irresponsible"

[Cyclone 10]

We were taught to provide breathes while getting a casualty to the side, while still in the water. The course must have been a waste of time then...I'll send a letter of complaint that they've wasted my time...

You weren't taught CPR then, which is what this thread is about.

 

"no kissing" CPR advert what do you think?

 

See.

[Frank Sidney 11]

You weren't taught CPR then, which is what this thread is about.

 

"no kissing" CPR advert what do you think?

 

See.

 

We were taught both. I'll try to clarify so there is no further confusion. Its not difficult...

 

Both are easy to learn. I was just commenting that by knowing both you would know how to deal with various emergencies. ie drowning and cardiac arrest (I may have got confused and called cardiac arrest a heart attack which has confused some)

 

Any assistance is useful, ie providing breaths while the casualty is still in the water, so if the latest thinking in other scenario accidents is different from what was taught in the past, who am I to dispute this. My training is in water based emergencies and what to do when a casualty is removed from the water. Although there was training in general first aid, this involved both methods of cpr...

[Cyclone 10]

But this entire thread is about the change to the general instruction for CPR, ie not to do breaths any more. If they don't need CPR or CPR isn't possible due to being trapped then it's not really relevant is it?

[Frank Sidney 11]

But this entire thread is about the change to the general instruction for CPR, ie not to do breaths any more. If they don't need CPR or CPR isn't possible due to being trapped then it's not really relevant is it?

 

I'm starting a new trend, a thread within a thread...

[Twiglet 10]

As I previously pointed out, 'rescue breaths' advised for drowning victims are not the same as/shouldn't be confused with the 'breaths' given in CPR. They are performed for different purposes.

[Taekwondo 10]

I will try to clarify the issues that have been raised

 

First of all the advert makes the assumption that the casualty has suffered a heart arrest. In adults the national statistics tell us that is the more likely cause. It is OK to just perform chest compressions in these cases. Many countries teach compression only CPR on their courses. The body still has some oxygen in it but it is not circulating, chest compressions circulate the oxygen and build up the perfusion pressure needed to transfer the oxygen from the blood stream into the vital organs such as the brain.

 

If the casualty is a child the statistics tell us that children don’t normally have heart arrests so it is more likely to be a breathing issue. The lungs will have shut down so oxygen is needed to reopen the airway and then compressions to circulate the oxygen. This is also the case for anyone rescued from drowning.

 

In these cases CPR is more effective than that used with a heart arrest.

[love_rat 10]

If that bloke had not been attacked by Vinny Jone's friends, then he would not have needed CPR treatment.

 

I hope the police investigate this particualr incident and Vinny and his gang are brought to book. Its even on the TV so the evidence is there for all to see

 

What message does thing send out to our youth? knock someone out for fun and then give them CPR?

 

Whatever next?