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?
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 .
It’s pretty wild that you’re getting on someone’s case about lacking evidence when you’ve utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I know paramedics who got formal complaints about this. Their boss ignored as the paramedics were acting as trained.
I am a paramedic, these comments have lost me. At least in the United States there is a 0% chance anything will happen if someone does CPR on another while acting in good faith.
This does exclude some some uncomfortable situations where family is screaming at me that I’m not doing enough or that I need to help them and people have appeared to be close to getting violent but I’ve never been attacked, and if someone is threatening another individual that is trying to help, leave. We can’t help other people if we become another person who needs help.
But I’ve done CPR on a lot of people, it’s violent. No one around will ever have to wonder what is being done, it is very clear and I don’t believe it is possible to confuse with touching an unconscious person inappropriately. Again, these comments have lost me. Maybe if some of these people would see a resuscitation attempt, they’d probably realize once the patient is spitting up blood from how violently their chest is being pushed on, there is no way to misinterpret CPR for groping.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
But you’re not gonna listen to that either.
😉 have a nice day.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
Suddenly trying to substitute “perceived risk” for “real risk” is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn’t at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
You’ve been making the claim in almost every comment that there’s a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You’ve provided no evidence for that risk. You’ve admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it’s a real risk. You don’t just get to say, “Well neither of us know for sure therefore you must accept my claim”. That’s ridiculous.
Have a nice day.
