Women are less likely to receive CPR in public than men: Study

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?
  
  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.
  
  Absolutely!
  
  And what if you’re outside a bar and everyone is drunk?
  
  Unfortunately life doesn’t provide ideal scenarios, not to mention that under the duress of what you’re doing you may forget steps.
  
  I’m not saying that fondling an unconscious person is the same as cpr, but that perceptions are funny things.
- 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.
  
  Wise.
- 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
  
  Proper CPR happens just below the sternum.
  
  Wouldn’t that be the hemlich?
  
  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
  
  Okay but we’ve already established that it’s not about what you ARE doing, but what people think you’re doing.
  
  Perception.
  
  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. Also, as a haver of boobs, I can vouch that they will have enough space between them when she's flat on her back and braless that you can put your locked fists between them on that bone and shove the heel of your hand towards the floor.
onsent of lifesaving attempts can be assumed, not of anything
COWS. "Can you here me?" "Open your eyes." "What's your name?" "Squeeze my hands."

Understandable, but you only need to do it if there is no pulse. If you are doing chest compressions to save their life, I am sure the majority would be quite happy with not dying. You don't need to take off their top, and you are pressing on their sternum rather than their breasts. You can't really mistake CPR for anything else if you are doing it correctly.

You don't need to take off their top

Well, you do if using AED. Tom Scott has video on those too: https://youtu.be/ecVHYg4_vZw
- I know, but I was just assuming chest compressions, no other tools. If you're strapping electrodes to an unconscious person, and the machine is talking you through the CPR steps, it's even less likely to be assumed to be anything than what it is.
  
  You would think that, but the reality is different.
You can’t, that doesn’t mean that some white knight in the crowd doesn’t.

While I agree the risk is low, it’s not zero.
- Youre afraid to save a persons life because there is a near zero chance that a very unlikely hypothetical situation may occur? Youre okay with letting someone die because you might get verbally chided, or worse, have someone misunderstand and be slightly rough with you? Wow.
  
  I honestly can't imagine being this scared of the world.
  
  You can’t say “near zero” you don’t have the numbers.
  
  It depends entirely on circumstance.
  
  And you know that.
  
  But it’s wonderful that you want to judge me as a keyboard warrior. I applaud how tough you are. Have a nice day.
  
  Please, give me any numbers that show people have been harassed, threatened or injured while performing CPR on a women.
  
  You consider it an unlikely but possible threat. I would like to see what data informs that threat to you.
  
  I expect its none, and instead you just want to feel persecuted because "women standing up for themselves in modern society makes me scared, so im going to pretend thats why i wont help a women that's dying."
  
  Again, fear driven and sad.
  
  We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
  
  Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
  
  But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
  
  We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
  
  But I’ll back up my statements with references
  
  https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/23/why-people-fear-performing-cpr-on-women-and-what-to-do-about-it
  
  Will you do the same? Or will you continue to ask me for information to back up your arguments?
  
  You made the suggestion that it was “near zero” and now you’re asking me for proof that it isn’t near zero.
  
  Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is "I can't find any proof there is danger here?"
  
  The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
  
  Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
  
  Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
  
  Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
  
  Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
  
  You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
  
  But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
  
  And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
  
  Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
  
  But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
  
  And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
  
  You made a claim:
  
  "this action has risk."
  
  You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
  
  Now you're asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
  
  Thats your gotcha argument? "I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn't exist, so therefore it does exist?"
  
  Is this your first day on the internet?
  
  Best rebuttal is calling people cowards eh?
  
  You win, but I wish you would reconsider that I may have a point despite your distaste for it.
  
  Have a nice day.
  
  And if someone gets the wrong perception so what? And what of the other x+ people seeing you do the right thing?
  
  I'd 100% cunt punt someone trying to attack someone performing life saving procedures on someone in crisis
  
  This isn't about giving lifesaving procedures, this is days latter when someone realizes what happens. There is plenty or evidence that 'bad touch' happened, and so lacking good Samaritan laws the law was violated and that is all we need to arrest someone. This type of harassment has happened, but I have no idea how often it does .
  
  You're the one who claimed near zero, onus is on you.
  
  Verbally chided? Getting sued for SA and getting your life ruined doesn't really seem like "verbally chided". Yeah, I'd probably let people die because my life is more important.
  
  Yes, I am.
  
  I'm not risking jail over this crap. Lost a job over it once, so I have personal, first-hand experience with the bullshit.
CPR does not save lives. It preserves a dead body until an AED or ambulance can bring it back to life. You need to remove her shirt and often bra (if there is a wire it must go, otherwise only if in the way) to use an AED so if some item of clothing is in the way don't worry about removing it.

Note that the above is generic CPR training that doesn't respect local laws which can say something different.
- AED's will not help someone whose heart is stopped (i.e. no pulse). They are used to shock the heart into restoring its normal rhythm. It will not start a heart that has stopped beating.
  
  Yeahhhh... and it makes me glad that the 'A' part in AED exists, because there are apparently a not insignificant number of people who have gotten their CPR training from TV.
- CPR absolutely does save lives. The success rate outside hospitals is around 10%. That's thousands of lives saved every year.
- Please do not say CPR does not save lives, it 100% does. And in the United States our Good Samaritan laws protect anyone from liability if they are acting in good faith trying to help someone.
  
  I’m a paramedic in the United States, hold a certification as a flight medic, nothing I can bring, in a helicopter or an ambulance will do anything for anyone if high quality CPR isn’t performed.
  
  To break things down, yes in adults early defibrillation does make a huge difference but in kids it is literally high quality CPR that saves them. If you’d like I’d be happy to break down the details of resuscitation, but without CPR until I can get there and attempt resuscitation, then no matter how much I throw at someone to try to get their heart beating again, they’ll still be brain dead.
  
  My CPR instructors put it the way I wrote it to encourage us to spend more effort on getting the AED and paramedics there fast. If you do CPR before the AED/paramedics is on the way you are wasting time, but getting those has been started CPR is important. However this is clearly semantics, I think we are all in agreement that CPR is important.
  
  Not all states have "good Samaritan" laws. Most do, but if you live in the exception you might suffer harassment after doing CPR, including go to court - odds are the court will throw the case out, but it will still be annoying to do the right thing in those states. Though even lacking such laws, the odds that anything will happen are low.
  
  Also not everyone lives in America. In more conservative places in Asia, touching a random woman (even if she is unconscious) and clearly in need of help is really asking to be judged.
  
  And if a video with accusatory narration is posted on tiktok or something, you're basically done for. Especially in a small town or country. You're basically doxxed and won't be easily hired for work because background checks are easily done, and the company (basically the HR) isn't going to risk the bad rep of hiring a potential molester, rapist, etc even if it's just an accusation by random people.
  
  Sorry forgot about this post, but it us an important topic to me. I’m only speaking for the United States All 50 states and the District of Columbia have a good Samaritan law, in addition to Federal laws for specific circumstances.
  
  And I agree some of this is just getting into semantics but yes get an AED if one is available, early defibrillation is without a doubt the best way to increase survival rates also activate emergency services as soon as possible there are things we carry that can help if the patient is receiving adequate CPR prior to our arrival, those steps are crucial. But ensure that you minimize any time spent not provided high quality CPR. Without blood flowing to the patients brain, it starts to die. Once the brain is dead there is nothing in modern medicine that can revive it.
  
  I don’t have an argument if someone is concerned about consequences for helping another person. I do what I do so I can sleep at night knowing I did what I believed was best and I did it to the best of my abilities. If I have to go to court then so be it, the bonus for me going to court is at least I’ll get to meet someone I’ve helped successfully resuscitate, that alone would make going to court worth it, independent of any verdict that is rendered. But that’s just me, I’ve had to pronounce a lot of people. I’ve had one or two go into cardiac arrest in front of my and then after treating them they talked to me during the ride to the hospital and I know I’ve had a handful of people that made a full and complete neurological recovery, but I’ve never gotten to meet any of them, which is also fine, but it would be neat to get to talk to one of them and hear their side of the experience.
I'm pretty sure most places in the states have laws protecting people but there have been people who were sued for giving cpr to someone who wasn't very grateful.
- Good Samaritan laws.

If you have cpr or aed training....and a person is unconscious, consent is implied. Especially if you follow training. You felt for a pulse and/or they were not breathing, you will not get sued in this country. If someone manages to get it to court, they will lose.

I am a certified CPR and AED , a registered WFR and just had a training class on the matter. As long as you follow proper protocol you are ok. And I'd like to add, as a man, yeah, I'd be nervous also exposing a womans chest in a crowd, people are stupid, but you can probably save a life.

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.