Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

insiderlouisville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#81

Post by datashovel »

vacri wrote: post #74
datashovel wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was fine as far as we all knew. He ended up leaving to go back home a few months after, and I wasn't close so we didn't stay in touch. I can't give a long-term prognosis, but I imagine the human body probably has mechanisms to deal with that sort of thing. He didn't feel concerned enough about it to go to the hospital afterwards, and we were just college students so we didn't feel we had any reason to override his…

For future reference, go to hospital. The lungs are a one-way system and can't digest things - any object going in either comes out the same way or sits around. That lump of food will have rotted, and would be a significant infection risk.

Good to know. And btw, just in case anyone reading would get the wrong impression from my previous comment, I'm not saying I think the lungs could technically digest food.

Basically, in my experience, if I've ever inhaled water (never food) I generally find that there's several minutes (or hours depending on quantity of fluids) of intermittent coughing where I feel like my body is doing something to make it easier for me to expel the fluids.

In terms of food, depending on quantity I was imaginging over course of several days (weeks?) perhaps the body is able to expel the solids in similar fashion.

My roommate was not a very talkative person, but we did hang out quite a bit while he lived with us, and nothing ever appeared abnormal, and he never got sick so I'm guessing he just kept the messy details to himself.

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#82

Post by eridius »

darkmighty wrote: post #31
eridius wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been rather skeptical about how well that would actually work in practice. But even if it does, presumably the person still needs immediate medical care, as having a hole cut open in their throat is still a pretty serious condition. If you're 100 miles out at sea, you're probably not going to do so well trying to breath through a makeshift tube from a hole in your throat.

I remember hearing a story of it being used a few times during flights. I guess it does work, and having a hole in your throat is not that bad, there are no arteries or much blood flow at all in there. Of course, I would still vastly prefer a dechoker! (assuming it works well)

A flight is a much more controlled environment, and one that will have immediate access to medical personnel the moment they touch down. 100 miles out at sea is not exactly a controlled environment, and access to medical personnel is not a matter of a short wait.

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#84

Post by adimitrov »

dheera wrote: post #83

I read it as (Dechoker medical device could end deaths) by choking when it really should be Dechoker medical device could end (deaths by choking) English really needs better syntax.

This is known as an attachment ambiguity. The classical sentence is "The man saw the woman with the telescope."

I'm afraid it is not limited to English, and a very common phenomenon across many languages that use prepositional phrases. Languages that do avoid these usually have a complicated case system. Even there, we have other ambiguity-types that are also common in English, such as relative clauses, quantifiers, etc.

Ambiguity is a natural part of languages. It can be fun :-) http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4566

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#85

Post by CamperBob2 »

jameslk wrote: post #80
CamperBob2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting -- my understanding is that Heimlich was explicitly intended to supersede the "slap on the back" technique.

You can thank good marketing for that. According to Roger White MD of the Mayo Clinic and American Heart Association (AHA), "There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in."[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_thrusts#History

Fascinating! I had no idea this was the least bit controversial. Looks like Dr. Heimlich's own son threw him under the bus.

It always seemed to me that pounding someone on the back was as likely to force the obstruction farther into the trachea as it was to cause it to be expelled. After all, the victim is presumably trying to breathe, so dislodging the object without a strong upward thrust seems like a bad idea. Guess that's not the case.

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#86

Post by tripletmass »

chazu wrote: post #43
dx211 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like if they don't have enough pressure in their lungs to expel the bite of ham sandwich, you wouldn't necessarily be able to suck it out with this device. On the other hand, I have a hard time blowing up those skinny balloons for balloon animals, but the pump thing they sell with them does it like a champ.

I'm not a doctor, but I imagine that using this device on someone without any air in their lungs might cause some sort of bleeding or abrasion in the lung tissue. Of course, if I'm choking I ccould care less... ...I'm terrified of choking, fwiw.

Their lungs are cheerfully cranking out carbon dioxide for the chance to do it again, so running out of residual volume or pulling nitrogen into gas has a lot of give. So you're the one with the strong negative response when people suggest hitting an exercise heart rate and recovering with solid food (root vegetables,) eh?

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#87

Post by mhb »

vacri wrote: post #73

> He researched the subject thoroughly and found that there was absolutely no other solution to choking besides the Heimlich maneuver. So he spent the past five years developing new technology to solve this problem. Strange, I did my last first aid course about 5 years ago, and remember a few methods other than the Heimlich. The Heimlich has this weird PR where it seems that it's the only method that the US knows abo…

What is your source for #2? The NHS (i.e., not the US) doesn't mention that technique.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/2301.aspx?categoryid=72

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#88

Post by thaumasiotes »

adimitrov wrote: post #84
dheera wrote: post #83

I read it as (Dechoker medical device could end deaths) by choking when it really should be Dechoker medical device could end (deaths by choking) English really needs better syntax.

This is known as an attachment ambiguity. The classical sentence is "The man saw the woman with the telescope." I'm afraid it is not limited to English, and a very common phenomenon across many languages that use prepositional phrases. Languages that do avoid these usually have a complicated case system. Even there, we have other ambiguity-types that are also common in English, such as relative clauses, quantifiers,…

My favorite standard example sentence (of ambiguity, that is) is "we saw her duck".

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#89

Post by thaumasiotes »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #85
jameslk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can thank good marketing for that. According to Roger White MD of the Mayo Clinic and American Heart Association (AHA), "There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in."[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_thrusts#History

Fascinating! I had no idea this was the least bit controversial. Looks like Dr. Heimlich's own son threw him under the bus. It always seemed to me that pounding someone on the back was as likely to force the obstruction farther into the trachea as it was to cause it to be expelled. After all, the victim is presumably trying to breathe, so dislodging the object without a strong upward thrust seems like a bad idea. Gue…

With something obstructing their airway, I would have assumed they were trying to cough. Inhaling a tiny drop of spit can be enough to give me serious breathing problems, not because the spit does anything but because I have to cough so much afterwards.

Re: Dechoker medical device could end deaths by choking

#90

Post by bostonvaulter2 »

jameslk wrote: post #80
CamperBob2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting -- my understanding is that Heimlich was explicitly intended to supersede the "slap on the back" technique.

You can thank good marketing for that. According to Roger White MD of the Mayo Clinic and American Heart Association (AHA), "There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in."[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_thrusts#History

Radiolab has a good episode on Dr. Heimlich: http://www.radiolab.org/story/heimlichs-maneuver/
Post reply on HN