Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Clarifications on when not to use

Yes, I know this text is redundant within the article. However, it is previously indicated in italics rather than in the emergency procedures. I feel it's more likely to be noticed if it is mentioned redundantly, and it is critical information. --Steven Fisher 13:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Need for Explanation

"You should not call for help while the victim is able to respond verbally, as the help may attempt the Heimlich maneuver. Only if the victim is unable to reply verbally should the Heimlich maneuver be attempted."

Is this intended to suggest that one should not seek assistance for a choking person not yet requring abdominal thrusts just in case the person who comes to assist decides to do them anyway??!!

That's what it sounds like to me. You don't want to hurt the person if they can still breathe okay. TheMrFrog 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the heimlich manuver can bruise or even break a person's ribs. Somebody should add what injuries the heimlich manuver canresult in. Also, how did austraila replace it, what do they use down under? On a lighter note, I found the description of a chocking person really funny, I always wondered what it meant when a person turned blue.

Better Image

I think it would be clearer if a photo of an actual demonstration of the maneuver was used, or maybe a diagram showing how it is performed should be included. Eilu 14:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The image should demonstrate a person performing the technique properly, the current image displays the person performing the thrusts with his leg between the victim's legs, this is improper because if the victim were to become unconcious, the rescuer's leg may become broken.67.68.10.170 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fabricated results?

On Drowning, someone added the following text to the advice against the Heimlich maneuver for drowning: "Furthermore, news articles have raised concerns that the entire concept is not only useless, but that Dr. Henry Heimlich used fabricated case reports to promote the idea: http://complaint.active.ws". Can someone clarify this, and if possible expand this Abdominal thrusts article (if true) or work comments on the critique in the article somehow if false? Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Several editors have been doing mass changes in connection with the spelling of the word "maneuver" I would suggest that we are seeing UK vs US and classical vs modern styles. Let's stop the editing on this long enough to settle on one style. Pzavon 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

The wording of this whole article is a mess. This article needs clear instructions without redundancy. To me, this article looks like it has been translated from many different languages using an Internet translator. Master Thief-117 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire article seems to me to be in standard, correct English - perhaps with a flavor of the style of the UK rather than America. I don't see a mess here at all, and certainly no problem with the use of the language. Pzavon 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversal?

The article mentions the procedures is controversial but fails to explain exactly why it is controversial. The controversy, which I have never heard of, should be made clear in the article, if it indeed does exist. --Cab88 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversy lies in resuscitating near-drowning victims. The American Red Cross says to go immediately to CPR, Dr. Heimlich says that the Maneuver should be performed 4-6 times, to make sure no water is in the lungs before beginning CPR.Cgirten 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to choking

I did earlier today, after some consideration redirect this article to choking, but his has been reverted back, so I feel we should discuss the way forward for this.

I find it very hard to justify an article entirely on abdominal thrusts. The procedure is only used for choking, and with how-tos removed, verges on being a stub. I will cut down the article without how-tos (as per wikipedia policy) and everyone can take a decision.

I think this should be the case because:

• Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
• With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
• It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
• It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
• It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I think the section on abdominal thrusts needs to be beefed up in the choking article. If we do keep this article as seperate, a lot of it needs to go, and it needs to be written in a less americacentric style. --John24601 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. As you said, abdominal thrusts are used only for choking, and abdominal thrusts is not a terribly long article. I see how choking could be a much better article with "abdominal thrusts" as a subheading. Sean William 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it could be part of a treatment section.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Abdominal thrusts and choking go together like two peas in a pod, the choking article would be much better with the thrust included. It will create a better article and give it a much higher assessment class Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Redirected

Following 100% support on the talk here - this article has now been redirected to Choking. Please help by expanding the abdominal thrusts section under choking (although i think i've got all the main bits over!)

Owain.davies 08:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)