Rescue or ???

[TMHeimer]

If my memory serves me correctly, one of the most frustrating experiences I had before I turned pro was taking PADI's Rescue Diver course and SSI's Stress & Rescue is that they said the OPPOSITE thing when it come to deciding on whether to do rescue breaths. One said if close to shore, do rescue breaths and haul in as fast as you can. If far from shore, skip the rescue breaths. The other said the opposite. You'd think there would be some medical based decision that would ensure that different agencies taught the same thing.

All this is quite interesting. tursiop's listing of the PADI procedures seems to be exactly what I learned in PADI Rescue in 2006, so I guess that hasn't changed (much?).
I always made a big deal about CPR procedures changing, sometimes in what appears to me to be willy-nilly--change for change's sake. Until someone explained the 5 year periods of data collecting they go through. tursiops also points out that there is limited research suggesting the advantages of inwater rescue breaths outweighing this (the) potential disadvantage.
It would be interesting to know exactly how the "limited research" is done. And perhaps how much, if anything, that is taught in Rescue courses is based on logic rather than the limited research.
I would guess the only way to collect data would be to ask the rescuer what they did-- this may not happen since the patient either survived or didn't, so end of story (?).

 

[Diving Dubai]

You'd think there would be some medical based decision that would ensure that different agencies taught the same thing.

BSAC differ from PADI too with the amount of Rescue breaths (or amount of time giving said breaths) before a tow. And I've listened to discussion between very experienced medical practitioners "arguing" on this very point I see both sides (after hearign their pov but I'm not qualified to make a judgement.

I guess agencies need to adopt a standard but there appears to be some small disagreement as to which way is best

 

[happy-diver]

You see it's not ER. the diver is dead and whatever you do is a bonus and the diver will probably remain dead

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

All this is quite interesting. tursiop's listing of the PADI procedures seems to be exactly what I learned in PADI Rescue in 2006, so I guess that hasn't changed (much?).
I always made a big deal about CPR procedures changing, sometimes in what appears to me to be willy-nilly--change for change's sake. Until someone explained the 5 year periods of data collecting they go through. tursiops also points out that there is limited research suggesting the advantages of inwater rescue breaths outweighing this (the) potential disadvantage.
It would be interesting to know exactly how the "limited research" is done. And perhaps how much, if anything, that is taught in Rescue courses is based on logic rather than research.

It'd also be interesting to sample the training material for all the WRSTC members for their rescue courses. Not that majority rules. Ultimately medical science trumps all, but when the research isn't there for medical science to make a definitive recommendation. I noted in the early link to a DAN article, the diagram refers to a training agency's recommendations, so they don't even take a stance.

Though, I'm wondering if I'm just being pedantic. Unless someone's internal organs shuts down due to cold water (like that Netflix movie about the commercial diver), I honestly am skeptical that it makes that much of a difference. The person is most likely going to die. Yes, I will not argue that there have been some people who have lived as a result of someone taking rescue steps, but those are the outliers. You'll never hear about people who tried and failed. Not an easy thing to live with and not something someone will likely actively share on the Internet.

 

[Diving Dubai]

You'll never hear about people who tried and failed.

One of my rescue students (prior to his course) had performed CPR for real 7 times until the medics turned up. with the exception of one (gunshot) the medics took over and put them in the ambulance and then (presumably) to ER)

None made a recovery

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

One of my rescue students (prior to his course) had performed CPR for real 7 times until the medics turned up. with the exception of one (gunshot) the medics took over and put them in the ambulance and then (presumably) to ER)

None made a recovery

And do they talk about it on the Internet? I was referring to in water rescues anyway. I will take back my use of the word "never" and change it to "hardly ever"

 

[MrBigfins]

In my personal water related water rescue experiences (ocean lifeguard and white water guide) I have performed CPR 3 times with 2 of those having positive outcomes. A 6 year old girl trapped in an Eddy under a waterfall and an ocean rescue of a middle aged man that lived because of efforts made and CPR performed. So it's not true that they are most likely dead and going to stay that way

 

[TMHeimer]

It'd also be interesting to sample the training material for all the WRSTC members for their rescue courses. Not that majority rules. Ultimately medical science trumps all, but when the research isn't there for medical science to make a definitive recommendation. I noted in the early link to a DAN article, the diagram refers to a training agency's recommendations, so they don't even take a stance.

Though, I'm wondering if I'm just being pedantic. Unless someone's internal organs shuts down due to cold water (like that Netflix movie about the commercial diver), I honestly am skeptical that it makes that much of a difference. The person is most likely going to die. Yes, I will not argue that there have been some people who have lived as a result of someone taking rescue steps, but those are the outliers. You'll never hear about people who tried and failed. Not an easy thing to live with and not something someone will likely actively share on the Internet.

Agree. Your last sentence brings up something I've recently thought about. I was PMd to give my reasoning on why I don't favour 10+ year olds starting scuba. I'm off on a tangent here, but it is related. I'm guessing most here on SB who want to start their kids so early are experienced divers with a child who has spent a lot of time in the water. So success rate for the kid is usually very high, incident rate almost nil. But, how many parents whose 10 year old had a fatal dive accident will have any interest in posting about it on the internet?
Same as the point in question here--apparently not enough info./research.

 

[pauldw]

I think that all divers should take OW and AOW and Rescue Diver, and probably Nitrox, to be considered basically trained. As for the question of whether that creates a legal expectation that you'll be a super rescue hero, to me the fact is that those three classes are essential, and that just isn't outweighed by the very off chance that taking Rescue Diver will somehow create legal liability. I don't get why anyone would forego essential training, even if they have a fear of lawyers. "Rescue Diver" doesn't mean you're some kind of professional rescuer. It doesn't mean you're any kind of rescue hero. Not at all, not even a little bit. It just means that if something goes wrong with your buddy, you'll have some idea of how to help your buddy get to the surface, and to a boat or shore, and that's something you should know, along with a few other things that are taught. By analogy, are you not going to take a first aid class because you're afraid of getting sued if you provide first aid? I hope not! We could go on and on that way. Where I think we wind up is that at least in the US, you don't have a legal duty to rescue, but since most people are human beings you'll want to help if something happens in front of you. Better to know how to do so safely. I found learning and practicing the knees-around-the-tank technique pretty close to worth the class all by itself. If you were to somehow get sued, depositions would likely ask not only about your certification, but about your training and experience, so I don't know how much it makes sense to take the class but not ask for the card; that's not going to help you, it's just odd. So you're back to: do you want to be a good dive buddy or not? If so, take Rescue Diver.

 

[TMHeimer]

I think that all divers should take OW and AOW and Rescue Diver, and probably Nitrox, to be considered basically trained. As for the question of whether that creates a legal expectation that you'll be a super rescue hero, the to me the fact is that those three classes are essential, and that just isn't outweighed by the very off chance that taking Rescue Diver will somehow create legal liability. I don't get why anyone would forego essential training, even if they have a fear of lawyers. "Rescue Diver" doesn't mean you're some kind of professional rescuer. It doesn't mean you're any kind of rescue hero. Not at all, not even a little bit. It just means that if something goes wrong with your buddy, you'll have some idea of how to help your buddy get to the surface, and to a boat or shore, and that's something you should know, along with a few other things that are taught. By analogy, are you not going to take a first aid class because you're afraid of getting sued if you provide first aid? I hope not! We could go on and on that way. Where I think we wind up is that at least in the US, you don't have a legal duty to rescue, but since most people are human beings you'll want to help if something happens in front of you. Better to know how to do so safely. I found learning and practicing the knees-around-the-tank technique pretty close to worth the class all by itself. If you were to somehow get sued, depositions would likely ask not only about your certification, but about your training and experience, so I don't know how much it makes sense to take the class but not ask for the card; that's not going to help you, it's just odd. So you're back to: do you want to be a good dive buddy or not? If so, take Rescue Diver.

Very good points. After I took the course I told my OW buddy a couple of things, one being what to do should I unexpectedly become unconscious underwater. Probably wasn't supposed to do that as I wasn't an instructor but hey, I'm looking out for number one.
May disagree about everyone taking AOW and Nitrox. Nitrox may never be needed depending on the type of diving you do, though it certainly increases bottom time, which is very useful to most divers.
AOW-- Good idea. Better if all 5 dives are safety/efficiency oriented (for example, back in 2006 one of my 5 AOW was the "Nitrox Adventure Dive"). This was just a boat dive on Nitrox. With PADI, AOW used to be a prerequisite for taking Rescue, as was having 20 logged dives. I guess PADI saw the importance of everyone taking Rescue, so eliminated the 20 dive thing and required only Adventure Diver cert., not the full AOW.