Talk:Abdominal thrusts

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First aid (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject First aid, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.First aidWikipedia:WikiProject First aidTemplate:WikiProject First aidFirst aid articles

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 1, 2019 and June 1, 2021.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah that's kind of a weird excerpt. In a choking emergency, you encourage them to cough, if that doesn't work, you slap them on the back. The heimlich maneuver is a "if worst comes to worst" option.

I don't see that quote in the article so it was probably changed in the 17 years since you wrote this lol Coulomb1 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: ". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll add a note to keep it to British-english. Coulomb1 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Oppose Though Abdominal thrusts are used for choking they are two different things. DXRAW 07:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRAXW : I'm not sure it's helpful to revert the change after it's been completed with quite a wide base of support. Unless you can support the revert with more than a one line reason, i will have to change it back again. Owain.davies 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a very short discussion time frame. My reason is reason enough its like redirecting apples to oranges cause they are both fruit. DXRAW 07:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the aggressive stance doesn't help reasoned argument. I apologise if you think the time scale was short, but i was aiming for a week, and performed the change after 6 days because of the 100% support given (and to be honest, 4 replies on an issue like this is as many as you tend to get). I think the best resolution would be if you can come up with a proper reasoned argument in a similar vein to my points above, and then an informed decision can be made. (incidentally, you further removal of how-to on the page makes it look even more like a stub, and i'm not sure what you could replace it with to make it a proper length article). Regards, Owain.davies 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Owain.davies said, if you can not come up with a reasonable argument opposing why this page should be redirected, i am afraid that we will redirect this page against your wishes. We are all waiting to here the very good reasons you have to why you oppose redirection! Best Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are two different things! It would like redirecting Facial tissue to Sneeze you might be choking but not have anything in your airway in that case abdominal thrusts would be useless. DXRAW 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm, aside from the fact that the definition of choking is airway obstruction....? I fail to see how a seperate article on abdominal thrusts is needed, particularly if we do a redirect from here to choking. I don't see the value in segregating topics for no reason. When you remove all the how-to from it you have left a stub, and this would fit far better (albeit in an edited form) in choking. --John24601 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further objections, i propose the following solution. I will effect the move and creating of redirect from abdominal thrust. If DXRAW or anyone else is convinced that abdominal thrusts can be an article of sufficient length and quality on it's own, then please create it in your user space, and then propose the splitting of the article again on the appropriate talk page, when another vote can be held. I think this is fair and generally inkeeping with wikipedia values. Is this acceptable to everyone? Owain.davies 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object I fail to see how this helps. How are people meant to help when they can't find the article just leave it be. DXRAW 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you might find this an acceptable middle way. The way people find out is that when you have written an article of sufficient quality on your user space, you place a tag on the new choking article which suggests that abdominal thrusts be split out. People then comment, and democracy prevails. Good wikipedia ettiquette is to move with the will of the majority! Owain.davies 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good quality already, Why would you put something about a worldwide procedure such as the Heimlich Manoeuvre into another article, You guys instead of just saying merge should help improve it. The "Abdominal thrusts" section in the chocking article does not need to be than one or two lines are the rest can be put in here. DXRAW 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Owain.davies your edit summarys such as (*sigh* here we go again) are not helpful in anyway. Please WP:AGF DXRAW 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with DXRAW , I oppose a merger. It is neither necessary nor desireable. The material on Abdominal Thrusts currently in the Choking article significantly unbalances it. That article should contain a couple of sentences on abdominal thrusts, with the greater detail, including the Heimlich's recommendation of the process for drowning and other situations, covered in an article on abdominal thrusts - or perhaps even in an article retitled "Heimlich Maneuver" to which abdominal thrusts might be redirected. Pzavon 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've added merge tags to both articles and placed a further plea on the first aid wikiproject for comments from people. I'm hoping we can find a clear consensus here: I propose that we leave the discussion one week until 29/5/07. By then, this will have been under discussion for 16 days, which I think is a reasonable timeframe for those who weren't happy with 6 days. If the balance of opinion remains in favour of merging, I'll do it at that time; if not we'll have a further discussion as to how we can improve this article --John24601 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the article to Choking and temporarily protected it because there were some problems over the weekend. This is not an endorsement of this editorial decision but I reviewed this talk page and, while there there isn't a full consensus, that is clearly the most supported action. So it seemed that implementing the redirect was the best way to sort out the mess. If you guys wish to continue this discussion and are able to reach a clearer consensus and need admin help implementing it, please feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to help. Sarah 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article brought back and updated

I recovered some of the article from 2007 and updated it today. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdominal thrusts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple instruction at first paragraph

I think many many people look this up in time of EMERGENCY. Compressing below diaphragm are academic words. I'm not very good with simple english for non native reader, I think press below rib cage or one palm above belly button is a lot clearer. Maybe write a very tight hug below rib cage? YogiHalim (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heim is NOT the recommended first thing to try in an emergency. See Choking. Artoria 2e5 🌉 08:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invented or popularized, not discovered

Heimlich maneuver is not a found object. It is a technique created by Henry Heimlich. Therefore I'm reverting the recent edit of "discovered" back to invented. "Popularized" I'd be fine with too, if there is good support for it over "invented." ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus or not bogus?

The current text of the article mentions that Dr. Heimlich's son disputes the validity of his father's claim that he saved someone himself, but on this BBC podcast, his daughter says the very opposite, and includes a clip of her father telling the story himself, along with that of the woman he saved. Witness History - The Heimlich Manoeuvre - BBC Sounds - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct4xhp Typofixer76 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]