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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
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.
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...
I could imagine that neighbour just heard some noise, looked outside, and then just concluded, you must've hit that child, from what the aftermath looked like...
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.
Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn't given consent.
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
Yeah but the mob around me watching me touch her breasts might not know that.
I'm not CPR certified or anything, but I think if you're just grabbing titties you're probably doing it wrong.
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.
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.
You don't need to take off their top
Well, you do if using AED. Tom Scott has video on those too: https://youtu.be/ecVHYg4_vZw
Bystander: She's apneic and has no pulse! I'm beginning CPR!
Commences compressions
Patient: Uh actually I have a boyfriend
"I was trying to save your life."
"Ugh are you still talking to me?"
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.
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.
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 ...
Just take the shorts off before helping
Was it illegal there to touch a woman while wearing shorts?
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.
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.
If I saw someone with a defibrillator ripping the clothes off an unconscious woman, I don't think I would suspect foul play.
You might not, but you gotta remember that the public is also filled with idiots
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.
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.
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
Yeah that wouldn't be what prevents a man from giving a woman CPR. It would be the potential for someone to cry foul play.
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.
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.
Its probably much better to have a shaved chest, but lets be realistic. In a situation where CPR and an AED are being used, 1. you probably arent going to have a razor handy 2. the sub-optimal contact with the skin is the least of you (or the patient's) worries.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
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.
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.
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 🙄
Makes sense, you could save their life and catch a case.
Having a one in 4 chance that you won't get CPR If you collapse in public is a disturbing statistic.