I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn't given consent.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
News
23268 readers
2789 users here now
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
CPR does not save lives. It preserves a dead body until an AED or ambulance can bring it back to life. You need to remove her shirt and often bra (if there is a wire it must go, otherwise only if in the way) to use an AED so if some item of clothing is in the way don't worry about removing it.
Note that the above is generic CPR training that doesn't respect local laws which can say something different.
CPR absolutely does save lives. The success rate outside hospitals is around 10%. That's thousands of lives saved every year.
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.
For sure! But I didn’t say you WERE grabbing titties, just that you’re perceived to be.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt…
Can you see that being perceived poorly?
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.
You can thank our society for this bullshit. It is because we put women on a pedestal in our society and men have been relegated to being the butt of jokes or the quiet backbones of the working class who have no right to complain, and if they dare not fit into those two categories, they are then accused of toxic masculinity or something similar.
This comes out of puritanical sexual shame and nothing more. Religion poisoned people's minds regarding sexuality.
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 ...
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.
I don't know why but my brain went the direction of "it's harder to hide a random boner in shorts" but don't ask me why my brain is fucked that way.
Not surprising. This aligns with other studies around women and cardiac problems. People have a bias toward identifying the symptoms that men show, and women often have a tendency to display different symptoms.
I... don't think that's the reason why people would avoid specifically CPR, specifically in a public place.
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.
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?"
I think the average person can tell what's going on if they see someone prone on the ground and someone doing chest compressions.
You would think that, right? But no. If you're a guy, you automatically think of all the ways you can get accused of SA, even when you're genuinely trying to help. So most guys just don't. It's not worth the risk.
I used to think the same. Then trump happened.
The puritanical culture we have is the ruin of everything. We wouldn't be overly thoughtful about consent this and that if not for awful people getting away with sex crimes left and right, even in current day. Guess what? If you're not a rapist, don't hold yourself to the same stringent standard - do the fucking CPR and save a life.
I would love to see one example where someone was prevented from doing CPR by a bystander because "you shouldn't be touching that woman". I would put money that it has never happened.
Whether it's happened or not, you're also running into two big problems America has:
- People who act without thinking
- People with a hero fantasy, and also often a gun
It doesn't have to have happened for people to fear that it will. In a nation where too many people carry guns, act rashly, and want to see their face on the news as a local hero, it just sounds too damn possible and risky.
Modern CPR training insists yiu have to announce what the fuck you’re doing because people will universally get the wrong idea.
You have no modesty when you’re dying- the underwire in a bra interferes with AEDs working, and the pads have to be on skin. For compressions you need to see where you are so you are, so the clothes come off.
It’s standard to drill that in, precise cause it has happened.
Hell. We’ve heard anecdotes of cops coming in and macing people giving CPR. People frequently assume the worst and act on it.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
This isn't a pole. This isn't self reported numbers. Those are real life numbers
It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever.
For example, if they'd only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the "study" would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering "real-life numbers"!
All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets.
I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error.
This Radiolab Episode always comes to my mind when people bring up CPR in any context. Apparently doctors overwhelmingly don't wish to be resuscitated for a good reason...
It's critical to point out the primary scenario associated with the survey and chart data in that article.
"Given the scenario of irreversable brain injury".
That changes everything.
Oh definitely. 10 minutes max to administer CPR before death is pretty much certain. IIRC, after 3 minutes chances of brain damage rise to 80%.
Not to mention the 30% chance of painful broken ribs, but hey at least you're alive with probably a hefty hospital bill, at least in the states.
I suppose that an addendum should be added to do not resuscitate tags. Do not resuscitate after specified time span. Or something like that.
Do not resuscitate tags are not something i'm trained at reading. If I see them and do CPR anyway I am protected by my states good Samaritan laws. If I see them and do nothing I could be in legal trouble! (Not anymore, but I uses to be on an emergency response team and then I was legally required to get involved). Even paramedics are trained to ignore those tags, once the patient is in the hospital there are procedures to verify if they are valid (as opposed to a murderer planting them I guess)
Ultimately I'm more in favor of the default response and laws around the subject being what they are. I just question these norms sometimes because I also strongly believe in the right to die.
This quickly becomes complicated given the contexts of the tragic experiences of those that survive life saving procedures like CPR with a significantly diminished quality of life due to permanent brain damage and other incurred disabilities. At what point does a person who wanted to live given full abilities of their mind and body comes to prefer to die when they no longer possess said cognitive/bodily functions? I honestly wonder.
Not something anyone who is watching somebody fall to the floor and stop breathing can take the time to contemplate, obviously. But the thought still gives me pause.
One of my biggest fears, bigger than dying even, is being "forced" to live when my mental faculties are far gone due to irreparable brain damage. And I wonder if it'd be less emotionally traumatic for my loved ones to have to see me like that than if someone trying to save my life had simply called the efforts no longer worth it after a (hopefully) thoughtful assessment.
I just honestly don't know, and the thoughts around it do occassionally haunt me when I contemplate my own inevitable demise.
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 🙄
I got mine through Boyscouts, but a lot of people don't really get that kind of education.
Unless you're a kid or a den mom, you don't have CPR training. It only lasts a few years.
Well, no, I have expired training. That's still better than literally nothing, it's not like the knowledge just vanishes. I think I could follow the 911 operator's instructions pretty well.
... though actually, yeah, I probably should fix that.
There's more to it than that. CPR certifications only last two years (at least in the US) and there's also the liability included with performing CPR that they cover in the class. If you perform CPR but are found to not have a current certification then you can get in a heap of financial debt as your not truly covered by the protections the certification can provide you, mainly around the "permission" to perform the act. Ribs can be broken and lungs can be punctured simply by performing CPR normally with the required amount of pressure needed.
In most cases good Samaritan laws protect people performing CPR regardless of certification.
Though yes, in my ideal world everyone would have up-to-date training paid for by the State.