Performing the Heimlich....being sued for saving some-ones life.....your opinions?

AudreyHepburn

I was chatting to a work collegue recently about a first aid class her son attended at school and was both shocked and appalled when she told me that the instructer had said he could not teach the class the Heimlich as there were cases going to court in which people were sued for performing it on other people.

The reason he gave is that when you give the Heimlich you are unfortunatly quite likely to break a rib because of the amount of pressure you need to exert for the procedure to work. As a first aider myself I can back him on this.

However I think few days of pain is a small price to pay if you it means you get to live.

It shocks me that anyone would be so ungrateful and vindictive as to take another to court for saving their own or their loved one's life.

Your opinions?

frozenfrozen

Few days of pain.. 2 full months after I last broke a few ribs before I was nearly back to normal....

I agree it's silly that people would be sued for it..


but breaking your ribs really hurts :'[

My name is URL

Much better to just grab the person choking by the ankles and shake them vigorously

girl2

Any first aid training I have been to over the last few years - there have been a lot of discussions around ligation where the person saved ends up suing the person who saved them (especially where people were left paralysed) due to being moved in the wrong way, or whatever.

DirtyBollox

good samaritan act

if you go to the aid of a member of the public and perform an activity like the heimlich where you break their ribs whilst saving their lives absolves you from any legal action.

Boombastic

My name is URL wrote: »

Much better to just grab the person choking by the ankles and shake them vigorously

I think you have to turn them upside down for that to work:D




It's gone silly if we are starting to sue people for saving our life

miss no stars

Do we not have a good Samaritan law here? I didn't do my first aid training here. I trained as a lifeguard in the USA and although it varies slightly from state to state, their good Samaritan laws say that if you injure a person whilst providing care that you are qualified to provide, and you're carrying out the care correctly and have consent to do so (them being unconscious or under 18 with no guardian present is assumed consent), you cannot be sued for any damage done in the process. If you're carrying out CPR or treating someone unconscious for choking there's a good chance you will do damage (broken sternum etc) so laws like that are fairly essential. #

Dunno why you'd be doing the Heimlich maneuver though? Thought that was sent packing a while back or is it just my across the pond training coming out?

miss no stars

DirtyBollox wrote: »

good samaritan act

if you go to the aid of a member of the public and perform an activity like the heimlich where you break their ribs whilst saving their lives absolves you from any legal action.

Even if you're not qualified to do so and have received no certified training in the area???? wtf like? That's battery!

AudreyHepburn

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Few days of pain.. 2 full months after I last broke a few ribs before I was nearly back to normal....

I agree it's silly that people would be sued for it..


but breaking your ribs really hurts :'[

I know it hurts, I wasn't trying to down play it.

But I honestly think its a small price for being allowed to live.

DirtyBollox

miss no stars wrote: »

Even if you're not qualified to do so and have received no certified training in the area???? wtf like? That's battery!

I imagine its as you said earlier. you need to be qualified and know what you're at. I didnt read it the whole way through myself.

Pottler

BTW, it really works - my youngest was out in a restaurant with us and started choking on a piece of meat - as in going blue etc etc. I did the Heimlich on him and it shot out across the restaurant, much to the other patrons amusement(which I thought was a bit odd) - didn't break any of his ribs though, or even hurt him. Maybe they're doing it wrong/too hard??

krudler

miss no stars wrote: »

Even if you're not qualified to do so and have received no certified training in the area???? wtf like? That's battery!

so what, you'd rather someone stood and watched as you choked? this compo culture sh1t really annoys me.

My name is URL

I highly doubt that someone (at least anyone worth saving in the first place) would sue you for actually saving their life like that. I've heard of cases where people (untrained in first-aid) have performed the Heimlich on others who they mistakenly believed were choking on something, heart attacks/asthma etc, and their conditions have been made worse as a result of the intervention. In those instances I think people have grounds for being pissed off, even if the person meant well.

AudreyHepburn

miss no stars wrote: »

Even if you're not qualified to do so and have received no certified training in the area???? wtf like? That's battery!

So we should just let the person die?

A bit of cop on and less extremism please.

miss no stars

Pottler wrote: »

BTW, it really works - my youngest was out in a restaurant with us and started choking on a piece of meat - as in going blue etc etc. I did the Heimlich on him and it shot out across the restaurant, much to the other patrons amusement(which I thought was a bit odd) - didn't break any of his ribs though, or even hurt him. Maybe they're doing it wrong/too hard??

It's dangerous. Upward striking blows to the back is the first port of call if they can't cough. First one I found after googling reasons why heimlich not recommended: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/heimlich.html

how to actually deal with choking: http://american.redcross.org/site/PageNavigator/SafetyNET/April_08/chokingemergencies

Ellis Dee

Some people are just not capable of feeling gratitude for anything.:rolleyes:

I want it on record that if anyone ever performs the Heimlich manoeuvre on me when I'm about to gasp my last, I won't quibble about a broken rib or two, and there could be a bottle of good whiskey or wine in it for my saviour.:):)

DirtyBollox

My name is URL wrote: »

I highly doubt that someone (at least anyone worth saving in the first place) would sue you for actually saving their life like that. I've heard of cases where people (untrained in first-aid) have performed the Heimlich on others who they mistakenly believed were choking on something, heart attacks/asthma etc, and their conditions have been made worse as a result of the intervention. In those instances I think people have grounds for being pissed off, even if the person meant well.

cant find the article now but a doctor performed an emergency tracheotomy on a woman once and saved her life. Then found out he was being sued because she now had a scar from it.

Where To

I think I've posted before about breaking three of a persons' ribs doing the Heimlich. They died anyway, food was too tightly lodged. There's still not a day passes that you don't think about it though.

But I've no hesitation in doing it again.

AudreyHepburn

My name is URL wrote: »

I highly doubt that someone (at least anyone worth saving in the first place) would sue you for actually saving their life like that. I've heard of cases where people (untrained in first-aid) have performed the Heimlich on others who they mistakenly believed were choking on something, heart attacks/asthma etc, and their conditions have been made worse as a result of the intervention. In those instances I think people have grounds for being pissed off, even if the person meant well.

I can't believe anyone's first reaction to being saved from death would be anger and 'how much can I take this person for'.

To be honest I think it's the most selfish vindictive thing you could do to a person.

miss no stars

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So we should just let the person die?

A bit of cop on and less extremism please.

Yeah but where does it stop? How about this scenario? Some crusader comes in when I'm still able to cough and asks if I'm choking. I might try to wave them away. They ignore and try to do the Heimlich maneuver on me. They mess up and completely lodge the foreign object in further so now I really am choking and can't even cough any more. I go unconscious and can't try and fend off the crusader. They then try picking my unconscious self up to continue to badly do the Heimlich and break my ribs, sternum and give me whiplash and as a result of being without air for so long, go blind or something. All that, when coughing might have brought it up?

So no, you shouldn't look on and do nothing... Call 999 or 112 :eek: Ask THEM what to do if you or anyone around hasn't had recent first aid training. You can make someone worse by thinking you're doing the right thing. Besides, it doesn't hurt to do a first aid course now and then. Anyone with kids should keep theirs up to date anyway, so if you're untrained, stand back and let someone who knows what they're doing in to help. Mkay?

miss no stars

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I can't believe anyone's first reaction to being saved from death would be anger and 'how much can I take this person for'.

To be honest I think it's the most selfish vindictive thing you could do to a person.

I think the point is that they weren't being saved from death? Someone completely unqualified to do so waded in and made things worse. Which is why if you don't know what to do, call the emergency services or let someone who does know what to do deal with it. And unless you have a piece of paper saying that you know what to do.... You don't know what to do.

tayto lover

My name is URL wrote: »

I highly doubt that someone (at least anyone worth saving in the first place) would sue you for actually saving their life like that. I've heard of cases where people (untrained in first-aid) have performed the Heimlich on others who they mistakenly believed were choking on something, heart attacks/asthma etc, and their conditions have been made worse as a result of the intervention. In those instances I think people have grounds for being pissed off, even if the person meant well.

I wonder what would happen if the person didn't survive and had a few broken ribs. Would you be sued for causing harm or even death in that event?

My name is URL

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I can't believe anyone's first reaction to being saved from death would be anger and 'how much can I take this person for'.

To be honest I think it's the most selfish vindictive thing you could do to a person.

Well to be fair, if you're having a severe asthma attack and someone just rushes in gung-ho to perform the Heimlich on you; causing substantial and irreparable damage in the process then you're not exactly being 'saved from death'.

Fwiw I agree with the point about people being dicks for suing if they were actually saved from choking. But I can understand why people would look for damages in the event that more harm was done than good.

AngryHippie

The Heimlich has been recognized as posing higher risks and similar effectiveness as upward back slaps, as described above. I don't think that in the absence of any trained first aid personnel that you should be held repsonsible for a broken rib should you save someones life, as you are untrained. But if you have been trained, then its is along the same lines as your GP giving you a lobotomy for a migraine. -Not best practice.

The methods that are taught are constantly being updated, its a good thing, from two perspectives, the onus is on people to re-train or re-certify which keeps their training fresh, and it also allows to retrain people away from outdated or ineffective methods of performing CPR/First aid. 10 years ago, the only place you saw defibrillators was in a hospital, on tv or in an ambulance, now they are appearing in shopping centers, work places and pools.

Mycroft H

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I was chatting to a work collegue recently about a first aid class her son attended at school and was both shocked and appalled when she told me that the instructer had said he could not teach the class the Heimlich as there were cases going to court in which people were sued for performing it on other people.

The reason he gave is that when you give the Heimlich you are unfortunatly quite likely to break a rib because of the amount of pressure you need to exert for the procedure to work. As a first aider myself I can back him on this.

However I think few days of pain is a small price to pay if you it means you get to live.

It shocks me that anyone would be so ungrateful and vindictive as to take another to court for saving their own or their loved one's life.

Your opinions?

Find a new instructor.

The Heimlich maneuver is still thought right throughout the pre hospital training system, except it's called the abdominal thrust. 5 back slaps and if they're ineffective, 5 abdominal thrusts.

It's thought right from the basic PHECC Cardic First Responder, which can be done in a day

Mycroft H

AngryHippie wrote: »

But if you have been trained, then its is along the same lines as your GP giving you a lobotomy for a migraine. -Not best practice.

That's a stupid comparison. If its done right, it's not as unsafe as people think

AudreyHepburn

BX 19 wrote: »

Find a new instructor.

The Heimlich maneuver is still thought right throughout the pre hospital training system, except it's called the abdominal thrust. 5 back slaps and if they're ineffective, 5 abdominal thrusts.

It's thought right from the basic PHECC Cardic First Responder, which can be done in a day

I know all that....I'm a first aider myself

I just used Heimlich as its a generally recognised term....I though if I'd said Abdominal Thrust people might not have known what I was talking about.

im invisible

Giggidy

aoshea83

It's not that it's not taught, it is, just not as the heimlich maneuver, the Heimlich family have tradmarked the name, see the following:
http://bringdownthestars.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-heimlich-family-sued/

3ndahalfof6

I do this to people who are not in trouble, kind of like an ends to end.

billybudd

Well in future and during choking you will be asked to sign a disclaimer and that way the world will be nice and purile.

And probaly less populated.

hairyprincess

Any judge worth his salt should throw those compo cases out the window. And the people who attempt to sue their saviour should be charged with wasting the courts time

Pottler

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

I do this to people who are not in trouble, kind of like an ends to end.

Theres a few lads I'd like to lift a foot in the air with a kick in the rocks-I'm just waiting for them to cough a bit so I can say I thought they were choking. I'll call it the Stoneslift manouever.

miss no stars

hairyprincess wrote: »

Any judge worth his salt should throw those compo cases out the window. And the people who attempt to sue their saviour should be charged with wasting the courts time

It ain't a "compo case" if some idiot assaulted you! If you were having an asthma attack and were treating yourself for it until assistance arrives, then some idiot comes over and starts doing the heimlich maneuver on you and breaks your ribs? Would you not be pissed off and rightly entitled to take them to court for the damage they've caused to you?

I hate seeing people who are genuinely rescued sue their rescuers. That's appalling and that's why there are in many places laws much stronger than Ireland's attempt at a good samaritan law (from my reading of what we have, open to correction) to protect people from such legal action. Even Ireland's LRC says that in the case of injury resulting from someone acting in good faith, they recommend that gross negligence be tested for, rather than simple negligence.

But like it or not, once a passerby intervenes if you're in distress, you and they enter a relationship where you're perceived to be dependent on them. This then obligates them to act with all due care. If you're on the ground and they're walking around you, trampling all over you and break your arm then they weren't acting with due care and a court might indeed find them guilty of gross negligence. They could have taken action to prevent that injury but didn't. If you're unconscious without a pulse and they break your ribs administering CPR, that's not negligence, that's par for the course. If you try to sue the paramedic who genuinely saved your life then yeah, you're wasting the court's time. If you try to sue the idiot who started doing abdominal thrusts and broke your ribs, even though you could cough and were waving them away, that's not wasting the court's time! That's sueing on the grounds of trespass to your person and battery.

I actually don't think that any medical assistance has to be within the bounds of a person's training in Ireland from what I can make out, which is kinda shocking really. Should be a big push to have 1 member of every household first aid, CPR and AED certified and then require people to act within the bounds of their training.

hairyprincess

miss no stars wrote: »

It ain't a "compo case" if some idiot assaulted you! If you were having an asthma attack and were treating yourself for it until assistance arrives, then some idiot comes over and starts doing the heimlich maneuver on you and breaks your ribs? Would you not be pissed off and rightly entitled to take them to court for the damage they've caused to you?

Some idiot???!!! Are you kidding?? A decent human being, believed you to be in serious, life threatening difficulties and stopped to help, and you want to sue them because of their act of kindness?? Would you prefer if someone who was in such a difficulty draw up a contract before anyone help them??

Mycroft H

miss no stars wrote: »

It ain't a "compo case" if some idiot assaulted you! If you were having an asthma attack and were treating yourself for it until assistance arrives, then some idiot comes over and starts doing the heimlich maneuver on you and breaks your ribs? Would you not be pissed off and rightly entitled to take them to court for the damage they've caused to you?

I hate seeing people who are genuinely rescued sue their rescuers. That's appalling and that's why there are in many places laws much stronger than Ireland's attempt at a good samaritan law (from my reading of what we have, open to correction) to protect people from such legal action. Even Ireland's LRC says that in the case of injury resulting from someone acting in good faith, they recommend that gross negligence be tested for, rather than simple negligence.

But like it or not, once a passerby intervenes if you're in distress, you and they enter a relationship where you're perceived to be dependent on them. This then obligates them to act with all due care. If you're on the ground and they're walking around you, trampling all over you and break your arm then they weren't acting with due care and a court might indeed find them guilty of gross negligence. They could have taken action to prevent that injury but didn't. If you're unconscious without a pulse and they break your ribs administering CPR, that's not negligence, that's par for the course. If you try to sue the paramedic who genuinely saved your life then yeah, you're wasting the court's time. If you try to sue the idiot who started doing abdominal thrusts and broke your ribs, even though you could cough and were waving them away, that's not wasting the court's time! That's sueing on the grounds of trespass to your person and battery.

You should have a read of this before you make silly statements.

Capt'n Midnight

hairyprincess wrote: »

Any judge worth his salt should throw those compo cases out the window. And the people who attempt to sue their saviour should be charged with wasting the courts time

it's not unknown for an Irish judge to issue a ruling that might, on reflection have been considered completely out of line with public opinion

cursai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqcAioUYinY

Cargin

Did an Occupational First Aid course recently, and the one point being stressed the whole way through was that we were under absolutely no obligation to use what we were learning. One could assume that to imply that if we weren't confident or comfortable with performing First Aid, it'd probably be best we didn't attempt.
On the other hand, taking into account what our instructor said, very candidly, about the dangers of becoming involved in a situation, from mistakes that endanger the victim's life, right down to being sued for whatever reason, and how he spoke about the Good Samaritan Act not being the impervious shield many people thought it to be, or indeed that it should be, I do think he was thinking more along on the lines of a the lawsuits that would result if he didn't caution us thoroughly.

Also, if a person attempts to give you the Heimlich/Abdominal thrusts without first confirming with you, through whatever means necessary, that you are in fact choking and do want their help, then they really are....foolish, and either not trained, or panicked enough to forget the training they may have. Although you'd have to be either really badly injured by their attempt (loss of earning injured) or a complete *expletive* to sue

mauzo

I've an awful habit of just jumping in and helping people.

Performed CPR on a woman last year, she lived thank god. Really thought she was a goner. I had been trained the year before.

A girl had a fit in my local shopping centre about two months ago, I had no idea what to do. She was still breathing, just writhing around on the marble on her back. So I went over, told everyone to give her space, put her on her side and a jumper under her head, made sure she wasn't going to swallow her tongue...then the ambulance got there.

Nobody else was trained or knew what to do. Should I have stood back and done nothing?

I'll always try and help, I'm not clueless, trained in CPR, know not to move anyone after a fall etc. If I was in trouble I think any help is better than no help at all.

I'd take permanently broken ribs over death I think! Some people just don't deserve the kindness of strangers, because that's what it is. To go ahead and step in when others stand back and gawk.

miss no stars

mauzo wrote: »

I've an awful habit of just jumping in and helping people.

Performed CPR on a woman last year, she lived thank god. Really thought she was a goner. I had been trained the year before.

A girl had a fit in my local shopping centre about two months ago, I had no idea what to do. She was still breathing, just writhing around on the marble on her back. So I went over, told everyone to give her space, put her on her side and a jumper under her head, made sure she wasn't going to swallow her tongue...then the ambulance got there.

Nobody else was trained or knew what to do. Should I have stood back and done nothing?

I'll always try and help, I'm not clueless, trained in CPR, know not to move anyone after a fall etc. If I was in trouble I think any help is better than no help at all.

I'd take permanently broken ribs over death I think! Some people just don't deserve the kindness of strangers, because that's what it is. To go ahead and step in when others stand back and gawk.

Yeah, what you did was right. You helped within your ability. What the people above seem to be missing is that if you act outside your ability and are being grossly negligent, of COURSE your victim should be able to sue you for damages. If you had no CPR training and there was an AED nearby, someone was on the ground unconscious. Would you just stick on the pads kinda where the diagram shows and hope for the best? If someone assisting was acting correctly and with common sense, of COURSE they should be protected. But if someone wades in without any training and acts outside of their ability? Why should they be protected?

MadsL

miss no stars wrote: »

Yeah, what you did was right. You helped within your ability. What the people above seem to be missing is that if you act outside your ability and are being grossly negligent, of COURSE your victim should be able to sue you for damages. If you had no CPR training and there was an AED nearby, someone was on the ground unconscious. Would you just stick on the pads kinda where the diagram shows and hope for the best? If someone assisting was acting correctly and with common sense, of COURSE they should be protected. But if someone wades in without any training and acts outside of their ability? Why should they be protected?

If I could find no pulse and they had stopped breathing would you not advise me to use the AED? I believe they come with instructions.

Abi

Possibility of choking to death as opposed to a broken rib.. let me think..


no no.. don't rush me..

Rasheed

We are still trained that abdominal thrusts are best practice. Had only to use it once and it worked thankfully.

Can be done wrongly but I'd rather it done badly than some eeijit staring at me.

And regarding using an AED without training, there is no question that you shouldn't without training.

BUT say it's just you and an unconscious person and an Defibrilliator, nobody else.

Do you think you could live with yourself that you didn't use it because you weren't sure and the person died? I couldn't if I wasn't trained.

MadsL

Rasheed wrote: »

And regarding using an AED without training, there is no question that you shouldn't without training.

BUT say it's just you and an unconscious person and an Defibrilliator, nobody else.

Do you think you could live with yourself that you didn't use it because you weren't sure and the person died? I couldn't if I wasn't trained.

I'd be of a similar view, would the law support me?

Rasheed

MadsL wrote: »

I'd be of a similar view, would the law support me?

I honestly can't answer you, but it's an interesting question. An AED won't let go ahead and shock unless the electric pulses in the heart will benefit. There fore you are not going to shock a person who's heart is going fine as the AED analyses it for you.

In that senario, perhaps the most damage you would do is breaking ribs from CPR? I really don't know regarding the law though.

Mycroft H

MadsL wrote: »

I'd be of a similar view, would the law support me?

There is defibs that are designed to be used by lay people, where all you do is attach the electrodes and the AED does the rest. No button to shock.

http://www.stjohnsupplies.co.uk/products/default.asp?productId=H00020

Mycroft H

MadsL wrote: »

I'd be of a similar view, would the law support me?

The Law would also support you


Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011

‘good samaritan’ means a person who, without expectation of payment or other reward, provides assistance, advice or care to another person in an emergency, but does not include a person who does so as a volunteer;

‘good samaritan’ means a person who, without expectation of payment or other reward, provides assistance, advice or care to another person in an emergency, but does not include a person who does so as a volunteer;



(2) A reference in this Part to the provision of assistance, advice or care to a person includes a reference to any of the following activities:

(a) the administration of first-aid to the person;

(b) the treatment of the person using an automated external defibrillator;

(c) the transportation of the person from the scene of an emergency to a hospital or other place for the purposes of ensuring the person receives medical care.

(3) The protection from personal liability conferred on a good samaritan by subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) any act done by the good samaritan in bad faith or with gross negligence, or

(b) any act done by the good samaritan when providing assistance, advice or care in circumstances where the good samaritan has a duty (whether imposed by or under any enactment or any other rule of law) to provide such assistance, advice or care.


Protection of good samaritans from liability for negligence.

51D.— (1) A good samaritan shall not be personally liable in negligence for any act done in an emergency when providing—

(a) assistance, advice or care to a person who is—

(i) in serious and imminent danger, or apparently in serious and imminent danger, of being injured or further injured,

(ii) injured or apparently injured, or

(iii) suffering, or apparently suffering, from an illness,

minidazzler

Pottler wrote: »

BTW, it really works - my youngest was out in a restaurant with us and started choking on a piece of meat - as in going blue etc etc. I did the Heimlich on him and it shot out across the restaurant, much to the other patrons amusement(which I thought was a bit odd) - didn't break any of his ribs though, or even hurt him. Maybe they're doing it wrong/too hard??

The Heimlich is supposed to break ribs. Your son is young, his bones wouldn't be fully formed so are a little more flexible.