Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire that brings up a good point. I wonder if they have just one AED or an AED for children as well? You can use the childrens one on adults too but not the adults on the children's. Maybe it is safe for both??
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I have worked at a summer camp with AED, and I think we only had adult ones. At least that's what we were trained on. They might have had different sizes of the pads, and which ever is hooked up to the machine will tell the machine how large the person is. It would seem strange to have adult sized AED's, when most of the people in the area are child sized.
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire Maybe its because when one thinks of someone having the need for an AED, its usually an older person that comes to mind, not a child. This shouldnt be the case! There should be one available for all.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I wonder if they have just one AED or an AED for children as well?<< As far as I know, there is only one type of AED and criteria is for them to be used on children of 8 years of age or older ,nor can a child weight less than 55 lbs (25kg). As far as I know, the kid who died on R&RC was treated with an AED but the efforts was fruitless. The AED's are NOT designed to deliver lower energy levels required for children. In that case, we are trained to delived CRP following the child procedures to do so... This is the reason why it pays for you parents to listen to your flight attendants when they tell you to shush your brats and strap them to their seats for the rest of the flight.
Originally Posted By RangerPooh AED's have optional infant/child pads that connect in place of the adult pads for delivering a shock to infants-children 55lb. They work not just with fibrillation (random out of control beats), but also with tachycardia (beating too fast to pump blood) I feel that there is little to no excuse for a venue open to the public such as the parks to not have an AED available pretty much anywhere. They have gotten pretty cheap and easy to maintain over the last couple of years... and they have pretty much gotten to be idiot proof. Who knows if it would have helped.... but then, there is always next time. I would hope that this incident at least trigers an internal audit to recognize little things like the lack of AED.
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire <<I would hope that this incident at least trigers an internal audit to recognize little things like the lack of AED. >> I hope so too! And thatgoes along with training enough CM's on how to use it.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys >The first report said they had checked out that morning, I wonder how long the trip was.< Without knowing how long the family had been there and what their schedule was, I would venture a guess that the child had been on the ride earlier in the week without a problem. Maybe being at the end of an exhausting week at the parks weakened the boy to where something which normally would not have been life threatening ended up being too much for him. We'll never know. That being said, I think it's time that Disney install potentially life saving devices in the areas where the thrill rides such as RnRC and MS are located. This could not only save lives, but also by the very fact that they are there. make people more aware that the ride can impact their health and well being.
Originally Posted By DisneyWorldMom American Heart Association.. quote from their website on AED's .. I also added the complete link to the AHA's page on AED's below... <<The police are the first responders in my community. Officials are reluctant to have them carry and use AEDs for fear of potential litigation. What legislation is currently in effect to protect first responders who use an AED? If the person is a trained and licensed medical first responder (MFR), an established standard of care is outlined in the law, and those operating within these guidelines are protected under these laws. These same guidelines pertain to the personnel in your EMS system. If they are not trained and licensed MFRs, check the state laws to determine if lay rescuers are given limited liability immunity. If not, they may not be protected from litigation. Agencies should seek legal counsel before implementing a defibrillation program.>> <a href="http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011859" target="_blank">http://www.americanheart.org/p resenter.jhtml?identifier=3011859</a>
Originally Posted By RangerPooh Well, in Florida, both MFR (Medical first Responders) as well as the general public are protected under Good Laws. Using an AED falls under this in most states including Florida and California. Again, there is no reason not to have an AED available or not to use one. 768.13 Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.— (1) This act shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Act." (2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
Originally Posted By RangerPooh I was meaning to say "Good Samaritan Laws".... Not, "Good Laws".... Well, they are good, but that was not the intended statement.
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire ^^That is if you get consent. If the person is unconcious, it is implied that they need help and you are indeed protected under the good samaritan laws. I thought that was for people who were AED certified though? I became AED certified through the red cross when I took a CPR/AED course. I needed it for my job (I work with children).
Originally Posted By RangerPooh It also covers those who are not certified but asting in good faith. Lots of money has been spent making AEDs easy enough to use that one would dneed almost no training, or none at all in a pinch.... Training establishes a standard of care. The lack of training does not preclude the right to give care. The law protects both. Any care is better than no care.
Originally Posted By RangerPooh Oh yea.... you are right, you need consent. If the person is in cardiac arrest, they will not be concious...so you have automatic implied consent. For all of the people I train on AEDs and CPR.. I just cant get over how many are fearful of liability. It is too bad that we live in a society that we are so ready to sue resulting in people scared to help each other out....
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire My CPR instructor told the story of someone getting hit by a car. Someone tried to help the victim out while they were passed out. Later that victim tried to sue the good samaritan for becoming involved.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Yes, they threw themselves into the car's path in hopes of collecting insurance and disability benefits, but the good samaritan interfere in all that.
Originally Posted By BlazesOfFire Yea...they claimed they "didnt want to be saved." They lost the case, however, because the guy was protected by the good samaritan laws!
Originally Posted By RangerPooh My DH is a licensed paramedic (non-working...moved on to bigger and better), EMT trainer, yadda yadda yadda.. He responded to one call where a kid was hit by a logging truck. Without getting into too many nasty details, the kid was really messed up, bleeding out on the spot, and half of his face was gone. DH arrived on the scene and began to give care to the poor kid.. His parents tried to interfere stating that it was "gods will" for the kid to be hit. They felt that if god wanted their son, he should just be left there in the road! DH took medical control of the child (legaly takes the right of consent from the parent, and gives it to care givers...for extreme cases like this). He works and works on this kid, who through the whole ordeal is concious... (it would have been a blessing had he passed out to avoid the pain). In the end, the child did die, and the parents sued stating that DH interfered with their religion! That the truck was just gods way of reclaiming their son. Of course they lost the suit.... But oh, there are some wackos out there that are just plain nuts or looking for a way to get $$$.
Originally Posted By leemac RangerPooh that story has just turned my stomach. I cannot imagine how parents could say such ridiculous things as their son lie there dying. That is truly horrific.