Seen the Hands-Only CPR commercial? Do exactly as instructed and you could kill someone!

[ohiosmith]

&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The ad makes no mention of checking a downed individual for breathing. One of the first things I learned when I was originally trained and certified to administer CPR was to check respiration. If an individual is breathing, their heart is beating. To perform CPR (chest compressions) on a person whose heart is beating could give them a heart attack.

[HopeHoops]

1. I agree with your last sentence, but they do recommend hands only now.

My wife has to take CPR for her job and that's the current approach they claim (note "claim&quot has a higher success rate than the traditional hand/mouth approach. But yeah, if the heart is going, DO NOT DO THIS!

[hlthe2b]

3. Yes... this is correct, but many a child and smaller woman/man has had broken ribs or worse....

Which might be at least understandable if they truly are in cardiac arrest, but not if one inadvertently triggers an arrest. While respiratory assist is no longer specifically recommended, checking for breathing is. It is not always that easy to tell whether a person with shallow respiration is in full arrest, particularly when the person who comes upon them likely is having their own adrenaline surge and rapid heart beat of their own--but you should take at least a few seconds to check.

[HopeHoops]

5. Good points. And not knowing how to apply the pressure can be more dangerous than doing nothing.

[ohiosmith]

4. I recall thirty years ago many questioned the need for mouth/mouth resuscitation.

[HopeHoops]

6. Well, supposedly the question has been resolved. It doesn't help according to the new method.

I don't know the proper way to perform CPR and I wouldn't attempt it for fear of killing someone out of my own ignorance. My wife would be all over it and probably save the person's life. She knows what she's doing.

[ohiosmith]

8. It's a nice skill to have. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[HopeHoops]

12. Yeah, I've considered it. Unfortunately, I'm in a condition where I'm most likely the receiver.

Life sucks sometimes.

[digonswine]

2. When I first learned CPR-

which was in 1996-I thought that rescue breaths were stupid. The act of compressing the chest does way more than the breaths.
If you doubt this, lie prone, offer no resistance, and have someone you trust do chest compressions. It does a great job of getting rid of the near useless residual volume of air in the lungs.

[HopeHoops]

7. Curiously, with dogs the breathing is more important. Their chest cavity isn't structured right.

You can't really do meaningful compression on most (if not all dogs), but you can on cats and rabbits. You're sort of stuck with breathing with dogs. You have to use the nose, but it still works. Fortunately I've never had to try it. They eat catbox crunchies.

[digonswine]

9. I never thought about it-

but I should-I have two. It does make sense, looking at the shape of their chests. I think of the number 0. For us, we are pushing horizontally. For dogs, we are pushing vertically. One would be effective and one would not. This is what I THINK, not what I know, by the way!

[HopeHoops]

13. There's no way to do compression CPR on a dog. It's like human vs. Klingon - anatomy is wrong.

You would have to break a few ribs to get CPR to work on a dog. Breathing through the nose is your only option. And this from a species that loves belly rubs.

On Edit: They STILL eat catbox crunchies!!!

[mike_c]

10. the best hands only CPR ad evah....

Vinnie Jones.

&feature=player_embedded

[angstlessk]

11. You are right..I always heard about 'Staying Alive'..but never saw the actual CPR done to the tune

besides I LOVE British TV and movies