• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

[NEWS] Man told to give addict mouth-to-mouth

Mine bleeds sumtimes as well altho i am addicted to a few things :P LOL

I believe that not washing ur teeth atleast 2 times a day can cause ur gums n teeth to bleed. I remember as a kid i didnt wash my teeth properly at all maybe one every 3rd-4th day (I know it was bad) and after that when i started brushing on a daily basis up to 2-3 times it always bleed but nowdays i dont get bleeding anymore unless i brush them very hard. Regarding the article id give it a 2nd thought to. I mean sure its common sense to save someones life but if it means endangering urself then u always have to outweigh the negatives and outcomes which can have a big impact on u or ur health.
 
well this story did what it was meant to do and grab the public attention, while i dont condone what the operator told the man to do and think that the result is an injustice, i still think the person might be a little more anxious and making aditional noise due to their own lack of info about BBV/STI.

transmission info table;
transmissionTable.gif



overdose response training



as for the resusitation of people there are a few ways it can be done by your normal everyday person, the better you are trainined at CPR the more likely you will have a reusus shield on you to act as the barrier. but for opioid overdoses the first thing to go is respiratory depression, then circulation so i can understand why the operator would be asking the person to breath for the paitent. but if the heart is stopped there is another way;


Hands-Only CPR simplifies saving lives for bystanders
American Heart Association scientific advisory report


New statement from the American Heart Association puts life-saving skills in your hands

DALLAS, April 1 — Chest compressions alone, or Hands-Only Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), can save lives and can be used to help an adult who suddenly collapses, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement.

View the Science Advisory here

The statement, from the association’s Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) committee, is published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.

Hands-Only CPR is a potentially lifesaving option to be used by people not trained in conventional CPR or those who are unsure of their ability to give the combination of chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth breathing it requires.

“Bystanders who witness the sudden collapse of an adult should immediately call 9-1-1 and start what we call Hands-Only CPR. This involves providing high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the middle of the victim’s chest, without stopping until emergency medical services (EMS) responders arrive,” said Michael Sayre, M.D., chair of the statement writing committee and associate professor in the Ohio State University Department of Emergency Medicine in Columbus.

About 310,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur out-of-hospital or in emergency departments each year in the United States. Of those deaths, about 166,200 are due to sudden cardiac arrest – nearly 450 per day.* Without immediate, effective CPR from a bystander, a person’s chance of surviving sudden cardiac arrest decreases 7 percent to 10 percent per minute. Unfortunately, on average, less than one-third of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims receive bystander CPR, which can double or triple a person’s chance of surviving cardiac arrest.

By using Hands-Only CPR, bystanders can still act to improve the odds of survival, whether they are trained in conventional CPR or not, Sayre said.

“Many times people nearby don’t help because they’re afraid that they will hurt the victim and aren’t confident in what they’re doing,” he said. “We want people to know that they can help many victims, just by calling 9-1-1 and doing chest compressions. Don’t be afraid to try it. We are sure many lives will be saved if the public does Hands-Only CPR for adult victims of sudden cardiac arrest.”

The new recommendation for Hands-Only CPR for adults who suddenly collapse is an update to the 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for CPR and ECC, which previously recommended that lay rescuers use compression-only CPR only if they were unable or unwilling to provide breaths. The update puts Hands-Only CPR on par with conventional CPR when used for an adult who has suddenly collapsed. This change was supported by evidence published from three separate large studies in 2007, each describing the outcomes of hundreds of instances of bystanders performing CPR on cardiac arrest victims. None of those studies demonstrated a negative impact on survival when ventilations were omitted from the bystanders’ actions. Hands-Only CPR is easier to remember and results in delivery of a greater number of chest compressions, with fewer interruptions, until more advanced care arrives on the scene.

Conventional CPR is still an important skill to learn, and medical personnel should still perform conventional CPR in the course of their professional duties. The new recommendations apply only to bystanders who come to the aid of adult cardiac arrest victims outside the hospital setting.

Hands-Only CPR should not be used for infants or children, for adults whose cardiac arrest is from respiratory causes (like drug overdose or near-drowning), or for an unwitnessed cardiac arrest. In those cases, the victim would benefit most from the combination of chest compressions and breaths in conventional CPR.

The public is still encouraged to obtain conventional CPR training, where they will learn the skills needed to perform Hands-Only CPR, as well as the additional skills needed to care for a wide range of cardiovascular- and respiratory-related medical emergencies, especially for infants and children.

The new statement is intended to increase how often bystander CPR is performed. It emphasizes the importance of “high-quality” chest compressions — deep compressions that allow for full chest recoil, at a rate of about 100 per minute — with minimal interruptions.

More information on CPR training can be found at www.americanheart.org/handsonlycpr.

Co-authors are: Robert A. Berg, M.D.; Diana M. Cave, R.N., M.S.N.; Richard Page, M.D.; Jerald Potts, Ph.D.; and Roger D. White, M.D.


and some research about how affective bystander CPR is for opioid overfdoses

Bystander resuscitation attempts at heroin overdose: does it improve outcomes?
Paul DietzeCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Kate Cantwellb and Stephen Burgessc
a VicHealth Public Health Research Fellow, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Inc. and Deakin University School of Health Sciences, 54–62 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065, Australia

b Metropolitan Ambulance Service, Melbourne, Australia

c Department of Paramedic Sciences, Victoria University, Australia
Received 6 September 2001;
accepted 21 March 2002.
Available online 29 April 2002.

Abstract

Study objective: To document the characteristics and effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at non-fatal heroin overdose events in Melbourne, Australia. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a computerised database of ambulance attendance records at non-fatal heroin overdose cases for the period 1/12/1998 to 31/7/2000 was undertaken. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measure was the rate of patient hospitalisation. The rate of CPR administration at heroin overdose cases was also examined, along with characteristics of the attendance, such as the age and sex of the overdose case, the relationship of person providing CPR to the overdose case as well as the location, time and date of the event. Results: CPR was administered prior to ambulance arrival in 579 heroin overdose cases (9.4% of total heroin overdose cases attended) between 1/12/98 and 31/7/2000. A greater proportion of female overdose cases were administered CPR than males and CPR administrations were evenly distributed across attendances occurring in private and public locations. Bystander administration of CPR prior to ambulance attendance resulted in a significantly lower rate of heroin user hospitalisation (14.5%) compared to cases where bystander CPR was not administered (18.8%). Conclusions: While CPR administration prior to ambulance attendance at heroin overdose events is relatively uncommon (especially compared to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest), such administration was associated with a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes in cases of non-fatal heroin overdose. These findings suggest that the provision of CPR training to people likely to come into contact with heroin overdose events may be an effective strategy at minimising consequent overdose-related harm.
 
I would do it unprotected or protected if it came down to it. Some ones life is far more important than me getting a Hep of some sort.
 
Busty whats your point with the gum bleeding thing? Doesn't that just prove even more that you could get shit from anybody and its no reason to discriminate against drug users specifically.

Anyone could have hepatitis and anyone gums could bleed. If this guy just didn't want to give anyone mouth to mouth then he would still be an ass hole but atleast he wouldn't be a bigoted ass hole.

You quote a high percentage of Hepatitis C cases being caused by injection and perhaps this is accurate. But say you find someone in the street requiring mouth to mouth for a non drug related reason, they have EVERY chance of being an injecting drug user, how could you possibly know? Also, we don't even know for a fact that this girl injects drugs, just because you are a heroin user doesn't mean you IV, I have done quite a bit of heroin as well as most other hard drugs yet I still have never injected myself with anything.

The shit thing here is all the assumptions being made just because someone was on heroin, and how these stupid generalisations about 'junkies' (who says she was one anyway?) could impact one human beings willingness to save anothers life.
 
Busty whats your point with the gum bleeding thing? Doesn't that just prove even more that you could get shit from anybody and its no reason to discriminate against drug users specifically.

Mr Cole said his wife, the doctor and his own GP were horrified that he had been instructed to give the woman unprotected mouth-to-mouth.

Doctors told him to get tested immediately for HIV and Hepatitis C, and again in three months.

I'm pretty sure that if I had to give my neighbour mouth to mouth the local GP probably wouldn't be too worried about me getting tested. I'm only assuming here but I bet she (and her partner) looked like right ferals for such a response. If 90% of new cases are from drug injection it doesn't take a mathematician to conclude that a greater percentages of junkies would be infected than the general public. A blood borne virus needs both parties to be bleeding, my point is you are at a greater risk of contracting Hep C if your own mouth is also an open sore.
 
Wish i could give a mouth to mouth to a very hot girl and then when shes better later on then i could do ass to mouth =D sorry got a little carried away there. Havnt had any for a little while :!:!=D
 
Once again though you are assuming that she is a junkie or even an IV user which she may not be. You use the GP as an example but I find it a poor one, as I have found GP's to be pretty bad for discriminating against drug users and addicts and spreading misinformation about the negative health consequences of drugs.

It doesn't take a mathemetician to work out if 90% of new cases of hep are due to injection then your chances of catching it from mouth to mouth are probably slim, so you can twist that statistic two ways buddy.

Once again you decide to make assumptions on this womans appearance, even if she does/did look feral is that now a reason not to give mouth to mouth to someone too? So should people who look "feral" not get mouth to mouth for any reason as they are probably junkies or otherwise unhygeinic and undeserving of having their life saved?

The thing is here, we are talking about someones LIFE, that shit takes priority over biased assumptions that theres a small chance you might get something by helping them, atleast in my view.
 
Plus we are only hearing his side of the story, not the person who he performed mouth to mouth on.

I guess saying she is a junkie and I could have caught anything is enough to get the media's attention (or this is the reporter's spin on it) as he said the response he received from Triple 0 was unsatisfactory.

I will give a big thumbs down to the operator not informing the man to use a cover for his mouth. (it is well covered in first aid courses you do) But then again we do not have a transcript of the telephone conversation either, so who really knows what happened.

Tip of the week 'If it's not on, it's not on'
 
Haha some harsh words for the guy who TRIED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I'm kinda surprised someone is so shocked he was hesitant to give mouth to mouth. If you do not know alot about disease transmission then mouth to mouth seems VERY risky. And sadly its a common stigma that drug users harbor more diseases and when this come to hepatits C its true. I mean busty's stat shows that the majority of new infections are from drug users infecting new users. This guy had EVERY right to be wary and personally i think he should be commended for getting over his anxiety and going for it. Why should he potentially put himself at danger to save someone he doesn't know?
 
It's been shown that drug users tend to be risk takers (or risk takers tend to use drugs, either way). It's 2.30am and I really don't want to hunt around for a study though. Discrimination or not, it seems reasonable that a person ODing from heroin would be more likely to have a disease than a person who had randomly collapsed. And while it's unlikely to get something like that (HIV from kissing- lol!), he should have been told to use a cover.

It never hurts to be safe! I just go around assuming everyone has giant facial herpes they're going to pass on to me. Hell, I carry around alcohol wipes to clean nang crackers for fear of catching the horrid HSV1.
 
1: That sort of makes sense, but statistically most people who OD are not first-time users.

2: I agree that most users don't have HIV or hepatitis, but they are at greater risk and certainly have higher rates. Non-users, whether prejudiced or not, are bound to be wary of this. As already said, you can't expect the average person to know the frequency or modes of transmission of these diseases.




I think it would be wise not to demonise non-users in the same ignorant fashion in which they demonise users. Take the moral high ground ;)

In no way am I demonising all non-users, it just really pisses me off when a type of non user (This seems to be a large percentage including the journalist that wrote this and the man that rang 000 + gave mouth to mouth) hears about drugs, in particular heroin, they straight away associate it with disease/junkies/needles and assume more often than not that this is the case with any user...

I know too many people that are like that and in this case the man quotes, with no prior knowledge to who this woman is and how often she uses drugs; "Well, look, this is a drug addict, I don't want to give mouth-to-mouth for fear of contracting disease, be it HIV or hepatitis or whatever.'' He even hesitated to give life saving first aid which if not given, could potentially kill someone and this is all because drugs were involved, he just assumes she is a junkie with diseases...

Now if he said some along the lines of "Are there any possibilites of contracting a disease if giving mouth to mouth to the unknown woman? If so, are there any methods to prevent it?" instead of calling her a junkie and sayin he doesnt want to do it to save her life, I wouldn't call him an ignorant cunt :\

In no way at all does every non user have this opinion, its just the majority of non users that ive met do. Everyone has their own opinion but its just shit like this which I find ignorant and strongly disagree with..

Busty whats your point with the gum bleeding thing? Doesn't that just prove even more that you could get shit from anybody and its no reason to discriminate against drug users specifically.

Anyone could have hepatitis and anyone gums could bleed. If this guy just didn't want to give anyone mouth to mouth then he would still be an ass hole but atleast he wouldn't be a bigoted ass hole.

You quote a high percentage of Hepatitis C cases being caused by injection and perhaps this is accurate. But say you find someone in the street requiring mouth to mouth for a non drug related reason, they have EVERY chance of being an injecting drug user, how could you possibly know? Also, we don't even know for a fact that this girl injects drugs, just because you are a heroin user doesn't mean you IV, I have done quite a bit of heroin as well as most other hard drugs yet I still have never injected myself with anything.

The shit thing here is all the assumptions being made just because someone was on heroin, and how these stupid generalisations about 'junkies' (who says she was one anyway?) could impact one human beings willingness to save anothers life.

Thats pretty much what I ment but worded alot better lol
 
Here's another thing...

Not that i'd go sharing injecting equipment with these people - but a lot of people i know have contracted Hep C through unsafe injections. Of these people, about 80% of them have cleared the virus naturally and have a viral loading of 0, but possess antibodies to the virus.

My mother is one of these people, as is a close friend.

Luckily, i've never contracted anything. :) Oh.. and i've had to give mouth to mouth unprotected to one of these people before, and had no issues - it's a life or death matter, you do what you can for the world, and it should do the same for you.

Taking heroin, and dropping is pretty common with inexperienced users, and even experienced users who've had a small break, and gear from a new source.
 
so that means if i used her rigs or had my way with her she would give me hep c or what, as a carrier?
 
^ I think that if they can't detect the actual virus for two years or more you are considered to be free of it and not contagious anymore, I might double check that though.
 
Sustained viral clearance is usually declared after 12 months of negative PCR tests. About 25% of people newly infected with hep C will clear it naturally (spontaneous viral clearance). The newer combo treatments are also clearing up to 80% of people with particular genotypes.

They will remain antibody positive, but they don't have any active virus in their blood and so they are not infectious and they don't experience any further liver damage.

And lagger, you can't catch hep C from unsafe sex unless both parties are bleeding. The Italian study that tracked 800 couples where one had hep C and the other didn't, found no transmission after several years, despite no condom use. For that reason, hep C is not considered a sexually transmitted infection unless people engage in practices more likley to involve blood to blood contact (eg S&M, sexual assault, and possibly anal sex).
 
I think that this thread is turning into a moral argument instead of focussing on HR. Sure, you can say that there is little to no risk involved, or that there is a risk - it's a little like looking at the problem from the opposing binaries of the idea/event. I personally don't have an opinion on this at all. I do, however, find it interesting that otherwise intelligent people here are willing to suggest that their moral stance is somehow more pertinent than those of others. Morality (something completely subjective) is what this issue comes down to here.

I also believe that the examples of giving friends mouth-to-mouth during an overdose are completely different situations than assisting some random person on the street. I haven't found myself in the "random OD" situation, so I don't know how I would react. If it were someone that I were close to - be it drug user or not - I would definitely help them. I know this might sound harsh, but I don't see myself as someone that NEEDS to save people's lives - especially if I have no emotional attachment to them. Call me a cunt if you want to, but an OD (which I have personally experienced from a cocktail of substances) is a stupid situation to find oneself in, and unless the drug(s) has been administered by another person, it is the fault of the user. Education (ie. Harm Reduction) is the key here.

What's with the bickering? It doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever. In the end, the man from the article obviously ended up helping the woman when he didn't NEED to. The interesting thing is that his apprehension and final actions are both warranted depending on personal opinion. He decided to do what he thought to be right (assisting the woman) even when he was afraid of possible repercussions.
 
Top