That's not an uncommon experience. It's an impossible ethical dilemma though. Do you tell people to stand by and wait for the police while a woman gets beaten by her partner? If it happens quickly you won't know if she knows the man or it's a stranger attacking her, and does that make a difference?
I think that fills in the blanks I had in my post. It's the difference maybe between training and instant instinct. Training so often gets in the way.
It isn't exactly self defense, but this sort of ties into what Simon just posted. And it does tie into a similar decision making process. I have been the certified CPR AED machine person for my workplace for many years. But not with COVID about. My workplace just re-opened to the public. I just resigned from this duty. I want to help, but I am just not going to get close enough to someone to do first aid. I am not getting close enough to a stranger to risk catching COVID while applying first aid. And honestly, no one else wants to take over doing it for the same reason. This is a hard decision. It may mean someone has less chance of surviving something until the paramedics arrive. But no. I am not going to risk my life like that. The risk factor for doing this just became too high. And I won't feel bad for protecting myself from infection. I view it as a self defense situation. Defense from an illness, not an attacker, but self defense all the same. Because, yeah Simon. sometimes you hear about someone jumping into a river to save someone. And all they end up doing is drowning with the person they tried to save.
^ somebody I know a little, (who is actually awesome) saved a child by jumping in the sea earlier this year, he said that despite being a strong swimmer, and being a SC coach, he almost drowned during the rescue. That's not to put anyone off doing it, but people should learn to swim, to know their own limitations, and not do risky activities/ use inflatable boats etc in the sea, Dad who risked life to save girl dragged to sea among Pride of Manchester wins
I think in the UK we might be going over to squeeze bottles and masks for CPR, due to this, might be worth having a look and seeing what changes your first aid organisations suggest during this year.
I am not getting close enough to someone to do that. It isn't just the technical CPR. It is being close enough to do any first aid. But Yeah, I bet there will be changes like this all over.
I think a lot of it depends on the context of the situation. If I'm out and about with my wife and kids and two young lads start scrapping, on a fairly equal basis, then I'm not getting involved. More than likely it will just be a split lip and bruised ego for one, or both of them, and that's not worth putting me and mine in any danger.
That can change as circumstances evolve though, if you want to call that OODA or whatever. If one of them ends up sparked out on the floor while the other plays football with his head, your plan may change.
Once you get the majority of the population vaccinated, this becomes less of an issue for the population as a whole, although obviously your own individual risk still needs to be assessed. Luckily were doing pretty ok for vaccinations in the UK at the moment, hurrah for socialised medicine and having a good enough education for the majority of people that the lockdown and vaccination scepticism has been kept to a minimum. Although we still do have far too many for my liking.
I did my annual refresher with St. John’s recently, and the current advise is chest compressions only with no rescue breaths , but as the guy running the course said , if it was someone you didn’t know this is what I’d probably do , but , or it’s a family member or maybe a close friend I will be giving breaths.
I did a refresher too. I didn't think the compressions only was to do with covid though, more that it's a more efficient way of pumping blood?
They were pushing for compression only CPR long before COVID. Anyone remember the Vinny Jones Staying Alive adverts? Untrained people are more likely to give compression only CPR, so overall survival rates go up. The difference in survival rates are not so different between compression only and giving mouth-to-mouth. The exception is children, where ventilation blockage is common. Some information and studies: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040370
As I understand it , chest compressions without breaths have limited use as the oxygen in the blood stream would deplete quite quickly , it was explained to us this policy is entirely due to COVID. They did show us some figures that I can’t find right now , but , the gist was that chest compressions only had a very low survival rate , adding breaths made a reasonable improvement and obviously the use of an aed increased the chances of surviving massively. *Edit* David beat me to it , and raises a valid point that people are probably more likely to at least have a go if they don’t feel they have to give mouth to mouth.
I'm sure I was told over 5 years ago by a St. John trainer that it was okay to give compression only to adults. According to the link I gave, the time before CPR is given has a much greater impact on survival than if mouth-to-mouth is given. Pretty sure the publicity campaign for compression only was to encourage people with no training to have a go though.
Edit: This post was made too slow, and is a few posts out of order from where it was directed. This post is meant to continue the "help a stranger?" line of conversation. DOUBLE EDIT EDIt EDit Edit edit t t t : I'm just an idiot who didn't click "page 6" and just started posting after reading @Dead_pool 's last post on page 5, which sparked this post. Imagine the extreme of this, where you have to watch somebody get shot to death, then another guy get shot to death who tries to help him by a sniper laying a trap and using your friend or comrade as bait to keep killing more of you as you try to rescue him. In the infantry I was taught how not to go save that guy and deal with the sniper. Plenty of video and photo examples (not from movies) to go along with the power point presentations. As a sniper I was taught how to set up that trap. I think this scenario captures the essence of war, survival, difficult ethical choices, extreme self defense situations etc.. There's really not a right or wrong answer. The situation is absolute chaos, and whatever you choose to do is your attempt at bringing forth order from that. None of us are greatly equipped in our intellect in these situations, and unless trained we often are forced to rely on the overwhelming pull of our ancestors fight/flight instincts. Most of the time in situations like this, you're choosing what's acceptable to you. How do you want to die? How do you want to live? What can you live with?
@Ero-Sennin, were you taught coping mechanisms to deal with the phycological issues that arise from such extremes? Hannibal has a programme he calls Aftermath Dark, which deals with shoot or don't shoot scenarios and the mental coping mechanisms. I have only just started to dip my toe into it, so don't know the full programme, but even dipping my toe in is really uncomfortable and I'm only able to do so for a few seconds at a time. Secondly having been through the programmes and training you have would it shape your response to our example of diving into a raging river to save someone?
I won't suggest people to get involve with fighting either. If 2 persons want to fight, let them fight. If a group of people want to fight, let them fight.
If there were options in the military to teach coping mechanisms for that type of thinking, I was unaware of them. If I were, at that point in my life I wouldn't have gone anywhere near it. (talking structured professional help) Working with a psychiatrist who is armed with decades of experience and knowledge from patients and education has certainly taught me plenty of coping mechanisms. It's very uncomfortable to unpack these kinds of things, especially when you unpack the things that made you do some pretty heavy stuff to survive. I'm sure Hannibal's program is great judging by the things he posts, things he has posted in the past that have shaped some of the ways I think about things, and his experience across different continents. I bet the guy is able to talk to anyone as long as they don't get all uppity about some crafty language xD. If I ever have the time to check out his stuff I would love to, but my free time is going into writing and re-teaching my brain how not to say the f-word every two seconds because I've gotten my health to a point where I want to start networking with people and contributing to society again. I only have so much mental and emotional energy I can expend on this stuff at a time before nihilism can cripple me (funny thing to be aware of and avoid, I know). I think if I saw a person drowning in a raging river I would perform an OODA loop because that's going to be the method that will help me see the small fallen tree to stick out into the water for the person to grab onto. My honest answer is context matters. If I saw a man throw his child into the river to get rid of it, I would probably do everything in my power (as well as the people I surround myself with in my life) to save them. If I watched an adult jump into the river for fun, I might try to find a way to help them but I'm not jumping in (unless I was an Olympic swimmer and water wasn't no thang). People have to be responsible for themselves to a certain degree. If the person fell at no fault of their own, then that's when I would rely on an OODA loop because in that context I just can't tell you. I have a lot of people who depend on me so I keep myself largely away from dangerous hobbies and places, but if I'm the only person who can help I don't know if I could live with myself it I didn't try. I think the answer my psych. would want me to notice here is that in any context, I want to help and would try to. That was a very difficult thing for me to acknowledge about myself for a lot of years after service due to some of the things I did and was involved in. Just avoid rivers right? xD
I have to ask: if it is so uncomfortable, and the odds of you ever having to shoot someone are essentially nil, why would you put yourself through it? For a professional like Hannibal, presumably it is about going through traumatic mental processes in order to inoculate themselves from potentially devastating emotional trauma, and to reduce the chances of hesitation in life and death situations. If you are never going to need that training, why put yourself through it? It makes me think of how I have to look at photographs of murder victims where they were killed and in post mortem for work, while there are people who look at photos and film of dead and dying people online in their leisure time... it boggles my mind why anyone would do that if they didn't have to!
