Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Gentle List Members,
I m personally getting a little tired of feeding frenzy around Mr. Irvine when
ever he
tries to contribute, I save the good stuff from here and so far he has
contributed the
bulk of it. I would really appreciate it if you folks would either contribute
something
useful or just STFU
As far as using a scuba demand reg from an o2 tank for venting a non responsive
pt:
If you check PP 198 of Brady, Emergency Care, 6th ed < an emt textbook>you
will find the
following:
" Positive pressure resuscitator-
A pos pressure resuccitator is controlled by the rescuer, O2 flows into the
pt lungs
when the button is depressed.Ventilitation continues until a preset pressure is
reached<
usually abt 40 mmhg> or until the button is released.The pos pressure device is
popular
b/c a two hand mask seal can be used.Only one finger is required to push the
button to
initiate ventilation.
Caution must be used w/ pp devices.Although easier than the bag valve mask,
the pp
device doesnt allow the emt to "feel" the lung compliance during venilation.PP
units must
be used with a reducing valve to prevent excessive pressure resulting in gastric
distension or inuury to the lungs."
It goes on to note that local protocols should be followed and the use of an
opa or npa
is strongly encouraged if not required by protocol. If you dont know what an
opa is, dont
ask, im not qualified to train emts.
Currently in NYS the positive pressure device is contraindicated, ie banned
from use by
emts and medics in the field. IT is still allowed for hospital personnel, to
the best of
my knowledge.
And as far as liability goes, if you have zero training and try to help, and
dont do
something obviously harmful< i.e. " he was choking so i shot him"> you will
be
protected.As far as i can remember G doesnt have an emt, cpr or dan o2 cert-and
w/o such
a cert he is an ordinary person, no duty, no breach, no cause, thus no
negligence.
And G is not the first to have this general idea, if you look at pg 20 of
your oms
catalog < < and what self respecting "tekkie" doesnt have at least two of
these??.> you
will see a device for performing exactly what G describes.
Furthermore, I would like to see one case where a personal injury or
negligence tort
action based on acts performed based on information received over the internet
made it
past summary judgement, much less succeeded at trial. And I can sheppardize so
dont send
me stuff from courts of first impression either.
Now for one of my favorites, has anyone seen the picture of the guy wearing the
oms
bondage wing on a single in the new Immersed? page 49 of the winter99 issue??
Its
hilarious.
later,
Al Marvelli
kirvine@sa*.ne* wrote:
> "Von", you tell that to the guy we pulled , and I am sure he will see it
> differently. "Criminal Ignorance" in my opinion is the crap you have
> recommended on here, and I will be glad to dig it up and replay it to
> show just how out of line, out of your league, and just plain ignorant
> you really are - any time you want a rematch. Take your personal petty
> crap up with me in person, and spare everyone else the bullshit. You
> know where to find me.
>
> bigvon@be*.ne* wrote:
> >
> > Karen
> > As an attorney I can say your posts are right on the money. Everyone on the
list
> > should reread your thread. In this case Irvine is way out of his league. He
should
> > stick with what he knows and quit giving advice that borders on criminal
ignorance.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > Karen Nakamura wrote:
> >
> > > Adri -
> > >
> > > Ironically, people who don't know anything are the most protected by the
> > > Good Samaritan Law (which is what this part of the thread is about). If
you
> > > make a reasonable effort and you haven't been taught any better, then
there
> > > isn't really anything they can sue you on.
> > >
> > > If you've received some training and know what's protocol and what's not,
> > > then doing stuff outside of protocol leaves you wide open.
> > >
> > > People in professional positions are the most open to a suit: DMs,
> > > instructors, guides, etc. That's why almost all agencies require them to
> > > have insurance. But there's two sides to the insurance -- having insurance
> > > also makes it more likely that you'll actually get sued. Which is most
> > > tempting to a lawyer:
> > >
> > > * Dive company with lots of insurance
> > > * Dive shop with insurance
> > > * Instructor with insurance
> > > * Boat captain with minimal insurance and a nice boat
> > > * Dive buddy who lives out of an old VW bus
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, when someone dies in the U.S., the family (encouraged by
the
> > > lawyers and by society) wants to blame someone and see retribution done.
> > > The laws (they vary from state to state) are designed to protect innocent
> > > citizens in the situation you're talking about: they come across a
> > > life-or-death situation, should they help or not? So you're covered.
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with diving, so the thread should die. This is the
> > > same principles that apply for any situation: hiking, gliding, climbing,
> > > etc. Do the best that you can with what you have and within the scope of
> > > common sense.
> > >
> > > If someone's already dead (not breathing), it's hard to kill them any more
> > > (so try what you can), but while we're in "dry dock", at least think about
> > > what options you might have. That way, you won't be stuck in a situation
> > > where you see an O2 deco reg and are tempted to intubate someone with it,
> > > you'll have thought out the best thing to do and use the equipment to its
> > > best.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > ps. it's really sad that we can't have a civil, coherent discussion about
> > > this. obviously, some methods will work (some of the time) but they
> > > shouldn't be presented as the *best* method when clearly superior
> > > alternatives exist. i won't defend my own stupid mistakes and lucky breaks
> > > with anything but an admission that they were stupid mistakes and lucky
> > > breaks. i think i learnt a bit more about human psychology than i really
> > > wanted to.
> > >
> > > At 11:09 AM +0100 11/12/99, <Adriaan_Haine@ce*.be*> wrote:
> > > > Karen,
> > > >
> > > > If I understand you correctly:
> > > >
> > > > if I am not qualified as a rescue diver, I should just leave the victim
alone
> > > > and watch him or her die? Because otherwise if she or he dies, I might
be
> > > >sued
> > > > because I tried to save a life and failed doing so?
> > > > Is it not better to have tried and failed then to not even try?
> > > >
> > > > confused,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Adri Haine
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> > > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
> >
> > --
> > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]