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

Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#41

Post by Styx- »

PKop wrote: post #28
Styx- wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shit all over someone else's way of viewing the world if it doesn't affect you? And none of the nonsense about Christians that don't believe in global warming or abortions or something, because you have no idea of this woman's stance on any of that. Disclaimer: I'm as agnostic as they come. EDIT: Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to criticize religious people for being religious. It is regressive and promot…

You make a bold assumption that "it doesn't affect you" (surely you'd agree this is up for debate no?), then the very next sentence describe political views that can be attributed directly to religious beliefs you're claiming have no affect on anyone. All ideas should be up for criticism. It is the very nature of religion somehow being off limits for debate that allows bad ideas to go unchallenged and spread.

All ideas should be up for criticism, yes. But not all ideas should be criticized.

The difference being that some criticisms are productive (presumably fresh, creative takes on thinking about something) and some simply serve the purpose of making the critic feel good about himself.

In what way do we benefit to hear a criticism of religion for the umpteen-millionth time and on the internet of all places? No one is refining their thought processes, no one is benefiting.

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#42

Post by anon4this1 »

MustardTiger wrote: post #31
Aelinsaar wrote: post #15

For all of his ups and downs on a personal level, the guy has probably indirectly (and now directly) saved a ton of lives.

No. There is no evidence to support the technique at all, and it is no longer recommended in most parts of the world.

Well, I'm an anaesthetist, and have heard this argument.

I personally did a heimlich maneuvere on a hospital inpatient who was blue and choking on a big bit of bread, and the bread came out and he turned pink again.

So from my samples size of N=1, it works 100% of the time. I would like to know the high quality randomized controlled trials which show that it doesn't?

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#43

Post by PKop »

Styx- wrote: post #41
PKop wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a bold assumption that "it doesn't affect you" (surely you'd agree this is up for debate no?), then the very next sentence describe political views that can be attributed directly to religious beliefs you're claiming have no affect on anyone. All ideas should be up for criticism. It is the very nature of religion somehow being off limits for debate that allows bad ideas to go unchallenged and spread.

All ideas should be up for criticism, yes. But not all ideas should be criticized. The difference being that some criticisms are productive (presumably fresh, creative takes on thinking about something) and some simply serve the purpose of making the critic feel good about himself. In what way do we benefit to hear a criticism of religion for the umpteen-millionth time and on the internet of all places? No one is ref…

No one? The data flat out refutes that claim: http://religionnews.com/2014/08/01/five-signs-great-decline-...

Looks like many have been refining their thought process. Perhaps it's from all of the criticism on the internet?

Just because all minds won't be swayed doesn't mean some won't be.

I do think criticizing the idea is more valid than criticizing the person who believes in that idea.

It sounds like what you mean to say is not all ideas need to be criticized always and everywhere they are present. Makes sense.

If you mean that religion should not be criticized anymore we've done it enough.... I don't see how this is not that same as saying religion is an idea that should not be up for criticism. Why is it special?

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#44

Post by azinman2 »

visakanv wrote: post #23
benjohnson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a Christian perspective - Yes - even the choking. there's an aspect of God's will that is permissive - it is thought that God permits evil because it could allow for a higher good such as free will. Though this can't be said for sure.

What about aggressive childhood leukaemia? Why does God do that? Genuinely curious to understand.

"God works in mysterious ways"

(as does the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy and santa)

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#45

Post by MustardTiger »

moonshinefe wrote: post #36
MustardTiger wrote: post #30

It isn't a "life-saving technique", it is bunk: "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."

It isn't though, if you read past the first paragraph in the wikipedia history of the technique. "The European Resuscitation Council and the Mayo Clinic recommend alternating between five back slaps and five abdominal thrusts in cases of severe airway obstructions.[1][2]" I hardly think they'd still recommend the maneuver still if it was "bunk".

>I hardly think they'd still recommend the maneuver still if it was "bunk".

The mayo clinic doesn't recommend it any more. And your logic there makes no sense. At what point does "still" matter? It used to be recommended by more people. It has been falling out of favor as more and more organizations stop recommending it as there is no evidence to support it. The fact that a few haven't updated their guidelines yet doesn't make it supported by evidence.

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#46

Post by azinman2 »

nickff wrote: post #26
azinman2 wrote: post #4

"God put me in the seat next to you." Did God also make you choke in the first place?

Are you trying to pass this atheist passive-aggressiveness off as wit? If so, you should have come up with something more original than this trite phrase.

I'm so sorry for offending your sensibilities. I'll try to do better next time.

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#47

Post by Aelinsaar »

MustardTiger wrote: post #31
Aelinsaar wrote: post #15

For all of his ups and downs on a personal level, the guy has probably indirectly (and now directly) saved a ton of lives.

No. There is no evidence to support the technique at all, and it is no longer recommended in most parts of the world.

Please cite, I can't find anything to support your claim.

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#48

Post by MustardTiger »

anon4this1 wrote: post #42
MustardTiger wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is no evidence to support the technique at all, and it is no longer recommended in most parts of the world.

Well, I'm an anaesthetist, and have heard this argument. I personally did a heimlich maneuvere on a hospital inpatient who was blue and choking on a big bit of bread, and the bread came out and he turned pink again. So from my samples size of N=1, it works 100% of the time. I would like to know the high quality randomized controlled trials which show that it doesn't?

Just like Lisa's rock. Nothing works 100% of the time, and obviously they do not use "high quality randomized controlled trials" since killing people is not ethical. Current recommendations are to begin with back blows.

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#49

Post by MustardTiger »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #47
MustardTiger wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is no evidence to support the technique at all, and it is no longer recommended in most parts of the world.

Please cite, I can't find anything to support your claim.

You can't find wikipedia? Here's his son's site talking about how he is a huge fraud: http://www.medfraud.info/

Re: Dr Heimlich saves choking woman with manoeuvre he invented

#50

Post by gnaritas »

lomnakkus wrote: post #32
gnaritas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> b) belief in God is not determined by rational reasoning. There are no rational arguments for a belief in God, so this is the answer. All belief in any gods is irrational by nature.

I think I might agree if you changed "belief" to "faith"[1]. "Belief" can be informed by evidence (flawed or not), but "faith" is explicit belief-without-evidence. The latter -- I agree -- is a terrible idea, but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2]. That doesn't mean that I would automatically dismiss them, but I would argue that they perhaps haven't learn…

> but presumably some of the people who have a "belief" in a higher being have some sort of evidence[2]

As you've noted, their evidence isn't the kind worth considering and is thus not good evidence and thus is not rational to conclude a belief with. I stand by my statement, there is not a rational reason to believe in any gods of any sort. That doesn't mean people don't believe, or don't claim they have evidence, it merely means their beliefs/evidence is not rational and is easily picked apart by actual rational thinking. There aren't any arguments for gods that aren't just bad arguments that presuppose God.

Post reply on HN