Discussions

Just for information. If you travel to Germany (and other Europan countries) and face a situation where someone is in danger (e.g. required first aid or attacked)  you have a duty to act  (but only if you do not endanger yourself – otherwise it is up to you). Even in the later case, you have a least to help by calling 112 Not acting can lead to a jail sentence (in extrem cases).  As I’m not a lawyer here some excerpts from the German “Strafgesetzbuch”: § 323c Strafgesetzbuch (StGB): “Wer bei Unglücksfällen oder gemeiner Gefahr oder Not nicht Hilfe leistet, obwohl dies erforderlich und ihm den Umständen nach zuzumuten, insbes. ohne erhebliche eigene Gefahr und ohne Verletzung anderer wichtiger Pflichten möglich ist, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.” § 323c StGB verpflichtet jeden zur Ersten Hilfe. Hilfe ist dann erforderlich, wenn der Verletzte oder Erkrankte ohne sie weiter einer gesundheitsbedrohlichen Gefahr ausgesetzt ist und der potenzielle Ersthelfer die Gelegenheit hat, die Gefahr abzuwenden. Von jedem Bürger wird die Unterstützung verlangt, die er leisten kann. Eine Hilfeleistung ist zumutbar, wenn sie keine erhebliche Gefahr für den Helfer darstellt und damit keine andere wichtige Pflicht verletzt wird. Ist ein direktes Eingreifen nicht möglich, ist immer noch ein Notruf oder das anderweitige Herbeiholen von Unterstützung zumutbar. Strafbar macht sich, wer bei offensichtlicher Notlage einer Person vorsätzlich (bewusst und gewollt) keine Hilfe leistet bzw. keine Hilfe herbeiholt und damit zumindest billigend in Kauf nimmt, dass der Betroffene keine (baldige) medizinische Versorgung erhält. Source: https://www.haufe.de/arbeitsschutz/arbeitsschutz-office-professional/erste-hilfe-1-gesetzliche-grundlagen-der-ersten-hilfe_idesk_PI13633_HI1479552.html

“Compression-only CPR …It has been found to be more effective than CPR that includes rescue breathing…” I’m surprised about that statement. At my last (I do it every year) First Aid Training we were told, that at the United States one has moved to train CPR without rescue breathing due to psychological reason. According to the trainer the problem was, that not many people are willing to provide breath and without the requirement to do it the people taking responsibility and making CPR (without it) has increased. He told us the decision was then made because even though it is less effective (his statement) by increasing the number of people who do at least CPR overall more lives can be rescued (based on circulating remaining air) – especially because normal the professional support arrives within less than 15min. He did not give sources for his statement, so I could not cross check it. Do you have sources that CPR without rescue breathing is more effective (or is this due to the reason I stated above, so less from looking at a single event and more to look for the overall picture)? “ We will do rescue breathing for patients that are not breathing (or not breathing adequately–too fast and shallow).” I do not get the point here, above it was stated that “Compression-only CPR …It has been found to be more effective than CPR” But here it says “We will do rescue breathing for patients that are not breathing…”. If someone is not breathing his heart will also stop soon and he will likely need both (or is it for case where you catch the very moment when breath just stopped). I also question if you should do it if someone is breathing too fast or shallow, I would start here with trying to bring the person to adapt it on his own – if he is conscious). So to say it shortly I’m a little bit confused about this chapter. I like the first video and I think it is really better to do CPR without breathing before you doing nothing. But as a general approach I still would do CPR with breathing (Ratio 30:2) and I would prefer if this is demonstrated here at the second video instead just giving breath. In addition it would be nice to show additional breathing options like mouth to nose or using one of the cheap mask one can carry always at the key: Sorry If I just didn’t understand the contend correctly but I fear others could also be confused here.

No activity yet.

Thx for the very good video about this important topic. Also interesting to learn about a tick born disease which I wasn’t aware of (the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever). Some personal notes: In particular in Western Europe (Germany) ticks are a really big problem (likely the biggest animal caused risk) As I’m often walking through scrubs looking for Mushrooms and Plants I “collect” ticks quite(record was around 50 in about a week). Nevertheless I manage to have normally not more than one or two really biting me per year: For me the most important part is to carry clothes (in the way explain at the video) where you can detect them easily and to look for them regulary if you walk through areas (e.g. fern in a forest). Over time you learn where they are very likely and you can avoid this areas or remove them immediately if yo have to pass through. It also makes sense to check you whole party when returning from the forest, often they can be catch before they bite or at least just after.As explained at the video often you can feel the crawling (the bigger ones), in addition I always feel a very specific itching short after they have bitten. By this I could remove all early enough to avoid getting Lyme disease which is also quite common here. Additional Note for Western Europe:The best chance to detect Lyme Disease in our area is by checking for red areas (often but not always around the bite, bigger than normal minor infection – https://www.allgemeinmedizin.uni-wuerzburg.de/lehrpraxen/infobereich-fuer-lehrpraxen/studien/lyme-borreliose-lydi-sentinel/) at the skin. As mentioned at the video if you remove them early there is a good chance to not get infect (in my area about 20% of the ticks are carrying it). Another disease transmitted by ticks in Western Europa (depending on region) is Tick-borne encephalitis, TBE (FSME in German). It is less common but more dangerous and transmitted in the very moment the tick bites. Making it more important to avoid getting bitten. For this diseases no effective treatment is available but a vaccine (recommended only in risk areas for people who are often out in the woods). Final remark: You mentioned that they also may have their role in nature but you can not really see it. I also asked myself this question many times (as they are nasty little bastards) but sometime ago I read an article which explained their role for the immune system and (as far I remember) natural selection for game. It was in German but here they say something similar: https://sciencing.com/what-purpose-do-ticks-serve-in-the-ecosystem-12192945.html

Just for information. If you travel to Germany (and other Europan countries) and face a situation where someone is in danger (e.g. required first aid or attacked)  you have a duty to act  (but only if you do not endanger yourself – otherwise it is up to you). Even in the later case, you have a least to help by calling 112 Not acting can lead to a jail sentence (in extrem cases).  As I’m not a lawyer here some excerpts from the German “Strafgesetzbuch”: § 323c Strafgesetzbuch (StGB): “Wer bei Unglücksfällen oder gemeiner Gefahr oder Not nicht Hilfe leistet, obwohl dies erforderlich und ihm den Umständen nach zuzumuten, insbes. ohne erhebliche eigene Gefahr und ohne Verletzung anderer wichtiger Pflichten möglich ist, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.” § 323c StGB verpflichtet jeden zur Ersten Hilfe. Hilfe ist dann erforderlich, wenn der Verletzte oder Erkrankte ohne sie weiter einer gesundheitsbedrohlichen Gefahr ausgesetzt ist und der potenzielle Ersthelfer die Gelegenheit hat, die Gefahr abzuwenden. Von jedem Bürger wird die Unterstützung verlangt, die er leisten kann. Eine Hilfeleistung ist zumutbar, wenn sie keine erhebliche Gefahr für den Helfer darstellt und damit keine andere wichtige Pflicht verletzt wird. Ist ein direktes Eingreifen nicht möglich, ist immer noch ein Notruf oder das anderweitige Herbeiholen von Unterstützung zumutbar. Strafbar macht sich, wer bei offensichtlicher Notlage einer Person vorsätzlich (bewusst und gewollt) keine Hilfe leistet bzw. keine Hilfe herbeiholt und damit zumindest billigend in Kauf nimmt, dass der Betroffene keine (baldige) medizinische Versorgung erhält. Source: https://www.haufe.de/arbeitsschutz/arbeitsschutz-office-professional/erste-hilfe-1-gesetzliche-grundlagen-der-ersten-hilfe_idesk_PI13633_HI1479552.html

“Compression-only CPR …It has been found to be more effective than CPR that includes rescue breathing…” I’m surprised about that statement. At my last (I do it every year) First Aid Training we were told, that at the United States one has moved to train CPR without rescue breathing due to psychological reason. According to the trainer the problem was, that not many people are willing to provide breath and without the requirement to do it the people taking responsibility and making CPR (without it) has increased. He told us the decision was then made because even though it is less effective (his statement) by increasing the number of people who do at least CPR overall more lives can be rescued (based on circulating remaining air) – especially because normal the professional support arrives within less than 15min. He did not give sources for his statement, so I could not cross check it. Do you have sources that CPR without rescue breathing is more effective (or is this due to the reason I stated above, so less from looking at a single event and more to look for the overall picture)? “ We will do rescue breathing for patients that are not breathing (or not breathing adequately–too fast and shallow).” I do not get the point here, above it was stated that “Compression-only CPR …It has been found to be more effective than CPR” But here it says “We will do rescue breathing for patients that are not breathing…”. If someone is not breathing his heart will also stop soon and he will likely need both (or is it for case where you catch the very moment when breath just stopped). I also question if you should do it if someone is breathing too fast or shallow, I would start here with trying to bring the person to adapt it on his own – if he is conscious). So to say it shortly I’m a little bit confused about this chapter. I like the first video and I think it is really better to do CPR without breathing before you doing nothing. But as a general approach I still would do CPR with breathing (Ratio 30:2) and I would prefer if this is demonstrated here at the second video instead just giving breath. In addition it would be nice to show additional breathing options like mouth to nose or using one of the cheap mask one can carry always at the key: Sorry If I just didn’t understand the contend correctly but I fear others could also be confused here.


Load more...