One time, I put my hand out to stop a kid from running into the street.
Most people were like “Woah that kid almost died.” But one Karen looking woman had a “How dare you touch that child” look.
I’m not going to stop saving kids who run into the street. But it did make me question when to involve myself or not. And I can see a lot of people hesitating because some fuckface has something stupid to say.
Yep. People have strange selective views on things.
I was standing with the car at the crossing where it enters the main road. A kid came racing down the bike path from the local primary school on his scooter and tried to get around my car without wasting speed, i.e. slowing down. Physics said: “NO” in no uncertain terms, and the kid kissed the road in front of my car. I got out to help, but he already got up, probably more annoyed about loosing speed than anything else, answered negative on my inquiry if he was hurt or needed help, and was off like lighting.
Two days later, the police was at my door, responding to a neighbors claim that I had run over a kid that day…
I could imagine that neighbour just heard some noise, looked outside, and then just concluded, you must’ve hit that child, from what the aftermath looked like…
A man stopped my son with his hand from crossing at the signal because a car didn’t see him and could have mowed him down. I think a lot about how that could have gone badly if the man had second guessed himself for even a moment. Legally and socially, we need to be on the side of anyone who makes a split second decision to help in a crisis.
We are, it’s called Good Samaritan laws.
Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.
deleted by creator
I’ll reference this comment in the trial.
You inferred one look from a stranger experiencing a traumatic event, that apparently wasn’t reinforced by conversation with her after the fact!? I don’t think you should modify anything about your instincts or responses…
You psychoanalyzed him from one comment on an Internet forum without a single reply or anything?
See how that sounds?
Uh, no? No one’s analyzing here! I basically told them to trust their instincts, rather than defer to the minority opinion of “all men are pedophiles” (based on their interpretation of the Karen’s response). Same advice I would give male lifeguards who would hesitate in possibly saving a life because maybe one person would be hyper-sensitive to any contact. Do what’s good and true and right immediately, and deal with haters later…
Yea, guess not.
👏🏼
Nah, cause those haters could put my ass in jail.
So no, I will assess every situation. I ain’t touching a woman who’s down.
Thank the assholes of the world for that… And also the coworker who flirted with me, and when I didn’t flirt with her, she accused me of sexual harassment and I got fired - 30 years ago.
The shit is real, (shitty) women have made the bed, they can lie in it.
Oh boy…
All it takes is one person to accuse you for your life to be ruined. Such is the reality of being a man.
Accusations ruin plenty of people’s lives, regardless of gender.
Don’t you know? Every woman who is middle aged and doesn’t give an appreciating look all the time I want is a misandrist Karen. And if someone dies, it’s her and other women’s fault.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a woman who hasn’t given consent.
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?
Unlikely that someone holding a defibrillator next to someone passed out on the ground is going to be perceived poorly.
Unfortunately in a panic scenario like that, sometimes people don’t see things as clearly as they might normally.
And people aren’t great on a normal day either.
Not everyone is going to have access to a defibrillator.
Fortunately they are cheap and easy to use correctly (and nearly impossible to use wrong), as such they are all over. If you are in a public place I’d be surprised if you didn’t have ready access to a defibrillator in the US, though you may not realize where it is.
You would think so, right? But the reality is that men are always assumed to have the worst intentions. Especially in hindsight. i.e. “he didn’t need to do that right? he must be trying to cop a feel”.
Same reason men aren’t usually kindergarten teachers, because they’re immediately assumed to be pedos.
I mean just getting the electrodes on for a defibrillator you have to lift their shirt
You also need to make sure their bra doesn’t have an underwire and remove it if there is.
Even though you’re joking I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did react like that. “Uhhmmmm, that’s no CPR, you’re just fondling her! I know because I went to CPR training.”
The instructors advise you to speak aloud your actions as you do them. Also helps if you have already levelled out instructions to the rent a crowd to perform specific tasks like send for help and get the defib and you three who said yes to cpr training let’s line up and take turns doing cpr.
…of course, the training to be comfortable giving these instructions is not really done.
Then put whichever Karen looks fiercest in charge of compressions. Either she’ll get in there and do them, or she’ll demur, in which case you say you will and she should watch so she can start when you get tired. That makes her your witness. Don’t forget to tell someone else to call emergency services.
By the time you try to convince any Karen to do anything, the person would have died.
Good point. On the other hand if you tell her to start, and when she starts to object you say fine I’ll do them until i get too tired, she’ll feel like she won the argument which is a step in the right direction.
If you’re touching her tits, you’re not giving proper CPR. Proper CPR happens just below the sternum. That’s well below any kind of bra band. If her tits are that low, she’s either an EE cup or 80 years old.
Huh, I looked it up and checked out the instructions and diagrams of several websites. Every one of them said to place your hands on the upper part of the chest and every image showed their hands between the nipples.
I heard the saying: if you didn’t break a rib you didn’t do CPR right. So I’m pretty sure it’s not beneath the sternum
You need to compress the chest, so pressure needs to go on the sternum. If you’re pressing below it, the only thing you’re compressing is their intestines, which is not gonna help anyone
Wouldn’t that break the xyphoid process? Below that is where you Heimlich. Above, on the strong center bone, is where you do chest compression.
Okay but we’ve already established that it’s not about what you ARE doing, but what people think you’re doing.
Perception.
COWS. “Can you here me?” “Open your eyes.” “What’s your name?” “Squeeze my hands.”
If you’re doing CPR they’re effectively dead before you start. If you’re the only one there, no witnesses unless you manage to save her. If you’re not alone, you should tell them you’re going to start CPR and order them to call 911 or 999 or whatever. Or volunteer to call while they start compressions. Then you can take over/take turns and vouch for each 's intentions.
I am hesitant to put my hands on the chest of a person who hasn’t given consent.
Someone who has no heartbeat automaticlly has given consent to receive CPR.
Not necessarily. Being unable to give consent doesn’t mean you consent. Also being dead doesn’t mean you consent either.
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.
I used to think the same. Then trump happened.
I would love to live in that universe of yours were the average person is well informed and rational.
Conversely, we had a call for a woman passed out in a car called in by a bystander. We arrived and she was still seated in the car, with a man doing one-armed compressions on her chest. It looked bad … until we got closer and saw she was both awake and speaking normally to her “savior”, and his CPR was on the level of “movie CPR”.
We figured he would stop on his own once he realized she was awake: he didn’t. We figured she would in some way indicated he needed to stop, or at least react adversely in any way to the man pushing (weakly) on her chest … she didn’t. We had to tell him to stop.
To his credit I think he just got tunnel vision. Based on his face the realization of how absurd it was hit a few seconds later.
Super facts
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.
This sounded strange to me, so I looked it up. This Wikipedia article suggests all US states have a good samaritan law, and some extend that further by requiring bystanders to reasonably provide assistance. However, who is liable and to what extent appears to vary. Additionally, interactions with other state laws could complicate things.
All that said, I admittedly don’t know much about good samaritan laws beyond this article.
Some of those laws are more recent, I believe. I got CPR certified in the 90s and the police officer instructing the course did indeed warn us to be careful about saving people as we could possibly get sued.
If I had to guess, it was a symptom of the sue-everyone-for-everything craze in those days, crossed with state laws that didn’t yet provide explicit protections for good samaritans because you generally don’t try to harm someone who went out of their way to save your life.
FYI if you look at the actual numbers, that frivolous lawsuit situation was manufactured by the media. Lawsuits have been in near continuous decline since that narrative started.
I’m currently certified and we are told that unconscious means consent and once you determine they’re not breathing (only criteria) then you perform cpr. I’ve been certified for over 7 years as a dispatcher and we often provide these exact instructions. Since we deal with the whole of the US we use national protocols which are valid throughout the country (emd epd protocols) and unless you know for SURE they are breathing you perform CPR every time. Doesn’t matter if they have a DNR. Unless of course they just had a seizure then you wait. But if you can’t confirm breathing or you say they’re snoring we are going straight to chest compressions. I’ve been trained by some of the most knowledgeable people who I was lucky to have the privilege to learn from. This training has served me very well.
The course I took this summer gave similar guidance, and dispelled any worries about getting sued for helping.
Interestingly though, the instructor said we should not provide breaths mouth to mouth without a guard if we suspect drug use, or even just don’t know the person. Apparently fentanyl has changed that landscape.
Doesn’t matter if they have a DNR.
Uhhh, what’s the point of a DNR then? Let me die if I want to, ffs.
Someone calling 911 for a person with a DNR isn’t going to be a good source of information on said DNR. A dispatcher isn’t going to attempt to verify the DNR is valid through the phone with someone that’s panicked, so “just do CPR” is the safe course of action.
If you get a DNR it needs to explained to your family what it means so they at least know what to do. And even if they freak out EMS/a nurse/etc will see the DNR and not continue resuscitation.
DNR is for the hospital staff who are legally trained and have time to figure out if it is valid. When seconds count nobody has time to check for fraudulent DNR tags.
It’s fully possible that the cop instructing the course didn’t know the law at all, especially a federal law.
Huh Wisconsin is a duty to rescue state
“I didn’t see anything.”
That does seem to be the prevailing attitude in Wisconsin
There’s no state that requires you to do more than a 911 call to report the emergency.
That depends. If you are a professional you may be required to do more. Professional includes being on the office emergency team.
This is for the US, other places may have differing laws, and I might be mistaken- and if so, please drop the relevant law. However, generally, the duty of rescue/care only comes from one of three sources:
- one caused the situation. If you hit a pedestrian while driving, you’re obligated to stop and provide reasonable care (which at a minimum means calling 911.)
- one has a special relationship. parents are obligated to provide care for their child. Cops and corrections officers are obligated to provide care for those in their custody. (doctor-client may get involved here.)
- you’ve already started providing care. once you start actually providing care or aid, you can’t stop.
- a statute creates such. This would be the bystander laws- none of them require more than calling 911. there’s only about ten states with them.
(to my knowledge,) no state has any legal obligation to provide rescue or emergency care. Doctors and nurses may have ethical duties, but that’s between you and where ever you get your ethics from. not saying you shouldn’t… but the obligation isn’t from a legal standpoint. The purpose of GS laws aren’t to force a person to provide care- they were originally to protect doctors and nurses from medical malpractice lawsuits for trying to do a good thing. Theyv’e subsequently expaned to the general public. The reason those protections are necessary is that while not on-duty, the doctor isn’t generally being covered by their malpractice insurance- they would be personally liable, and lawsuits are expensive- even if you loose.
And no, office emergency teams do not qualify as medical professionals*. They’re generally not medically licensed, generally lack advanced training, generally, their roll as an ERT-type is secondary to other job tasks, and generally are only obligated to act by their contract with their employers- not the law. Further, there is no legal obligation, even for medical professionals when off duty. Licensing bodies, employers and such like may impose ethical obligations to maintain their professional licensing, but those are not criminal law, and the consequences are not enforced by the state or federal legal code.
*excepting people like school nurses, or doctors/nurses in prisons or whatever, who do happen to be licensed as a matter of their job title
It was 20 years ago, but then my training made sure to make it clear I was obliged to provide aid in the state I was in. I have no idea what the laws are.
We need to ask Jackie Chiles.
Every state has something.
But that only provides legal protection from lawsuits after the fact; generally, they require that you act in a reason way, in the scope of your training (or under direction of say 911 dispatch,)
Some will also mandate that you call 911 immediately- though no state requires more than that
My understanding of it is that CPR has a lot of negative side effects that we’re usually not told about or aware of, like cracking or breaking a rib during compressions.
Not that this is in any way good, but I think some have successfully sued their saviors due to complications from CPR.
I think a law should be passed that says you can’t sue someone for complications of saving your life, but, you know…
Throw in that CPR is effective in 10% of situations and maybe there are reasons why people don’t act. 10% is wayyy better than 0% so it is always worth trying.
I’m cpr certified and was told this during training. Maybe it’s not general population knowledge though.
@OceanSoap @alienanimals Sounds like it’s time to push for Good Samaritan laws in every state. We have one in California. And yes, there can be side effects, but these aren’t limited to GSs. Medical personnel can inflict them as well (damage with intubation comes to mind), and if the injuries are consistent with life saving measures, they are protected. Why shouldn’t GSs also be covered?
Can I get some qualifications so I can send them a bill, if this happens?
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 …
Just take the shorts off before helping
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.
It’s not you. Saying ‘wearing shorts’ is why you didn’t give CPR is fucking stupid.
He said he could have been jailed or beaten for touching her. The shorts probably just made the situation worse.
I took it as he has a CPR fetish, no hate, he admitted it was inappropriate in the moment and noped out. in fact, if he was looking for some exploratory partners, i have an inbox 😘
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.
52% versus 55%. 61% vs 68% in public places. Not a lot of difference, within margin of error even.
The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it’s within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases but we’re talking about tens of thousands here.
Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.
Having a larger sample size doesn’t necessarily decrease the margin of error. It’s impossible to say if the difference is statistically significant without crunching the numbers.
Meh… Even without seeing the data collection methodology, or the analysis, I’m calling shenanigans. Thats an almost non-existent difference - how do we know the cases where women didn’t get support are primarily women-only spaces (say women’s gym, yoga, etc)?
Someone’s using this slight difference to push a narrative.
What do you mean by “margin of error”?
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.
It doesn’t matter, a margin of error exists regardless of the data source.
To add to your point with a very clear example: If I did a study to check the average age of people in a country where I mainly checked the age of people living in retirement homes, the margin of error would be huge even if I got the age from hundreds of thousands of people.
In more general terms: there can be systemic errors due to methodology that no increasing of the number of samples will remove.
Thank you, that’s an important point to make. There’s this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth.
The methodology is what’s vital to the data’s significance.
But is it a poll?
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 🙄
In germany, you need to take an 8 hour first aid course to get your driver’s license.
It’s better than nothing, but it’s been 5 years for me and I’m not sure if I could still do it properly.
Which is another reason why drivers licenses and the FA course should be repeated every few years.
The amount of people who don’t understand road laws or misremember them is insane
I fully agree. People seem to forget that they are controlling 1.5 tons of steel at a ridiculous speeds and can easily kill someone if they move their hand just a bit too far.
And still my first aid teacher to get my German driver’s license said that the survival rate for people whose heart stops is worse in Germany than the US
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.
Call 911 and then follow the instructions of the operator who is trained in teaching CPR over the phone in these situations, and knows the latest. That you had training means you are more likely to understand instructions given ,and if not you were following directions of someone else.
You need to call 911 anyway. CPR is only performed on dead people, you need an AED (or similar tools in an ambulance) to bring someone back to life.
Calling 911 is the right way to go. Activating emergency response system. And if you don’t make sure someone else does and tells you they have. So many times people assume someone else called and no one has.
There was a push at one point in time to teach bystander CPR, which focuses on compressions at a rate of 100-120 a minute with a little less focus on landmarks and more “middle of the chest and go”. It also taught that people typically have about 20 minutes of reserve oxygen in their venous system and that compressions continuously increased survivability by keeping the circulation going through compressions. Considering average ems response time in the US, it seemed to reduce confusion and encouraged more community response (not wanting to do mouth to mouth is a fear people have). Not sure if it’s still being taught, but it was fairly well received at the time.
Call 911 yes, but if you have training, tell them to stfu and let you do it. They try to have you count out loud with them, but the delay over the phone makes you go off rhythm constantly. I threw the phone across the room when I was giving CPR to my dad. He didn’t make it, and I often wonder if it was because of the shitty beginning of the CPR regimen.
That sounds traumatic. Hope you’re getting through it (sorry for your loss)
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.
Good Samaritan laws would protect you from that, no?
One of the beliefs is also the education of CPR is taught on male-form mannequins and that’s how folks are taught anatomical landmarks. Many people don’t actually know how to find the correct location to compress when breasts are present apparently.
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.
Makes sense, you could save their life and catch a case.
Having a one in 4 chance that you won’t get CPR If you collapse in public is a disturbing statistic.
The bystander effect is a real bitch.
W O R L D S T A R 4 The V I N E
Well maybe she has a boyfriend
Cool data point, but 7% doesn’t feel significant to me.
Cool data point, but 7% doesn’t feel significant to me
Probably because you’re not a woman that may need CPR one day. It’s easy to dismiss things that won’t ever effect you.
Probably because 7% is a small ass number. Give me a 7% statistic about nonbinaries, and we’ll see how many fucks I think it’s worth.
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.
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.
Modern CPR training insists that you have to announce what the fuck you’re doing because that’s the standard of communication during an emergency. When we’re running a code in the hospital, we announce our actions to the room, so everyone knows what’s going on. That’s just how it’s done
But that’s a team of people working together. Theoretically this is one person giving CPR.
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.
Maybe so. But as someone trained in basic life saving I’m not going to let the fear of some idiot near me doing something extremely stupid stop me from doing the right thing in an emergency. If we all start thinking like that, then we’ve already ceded victory to them.
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.
Reminds me of a chat I had with a prepped. I basically said that living in a functional society is hard, so I’d rather die quickly in a catastrophic collapse.
As a person who loves being alive, I can honestly say I’d rather be dead under many different specific hypothetical circumstances.
My estimation is that you live long enough, you eventually encounter one or many of those circumstances. The right to live as well as the right to die the way you want should never be infringed upon.
Of course, because the people trained in CPR are generally men. And men aren’t gonna risk getting accused of SA by helping a woman. It’s just too risky. What’s the point?
