The Glade 4.0

On what grounds?
Who pays the money?
Who enforces non-attendance?
What happens if you fail to learn properly?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How do you expect people to learn if they are mandated when they have already not learned and the life of their child is at stake?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Probably because it simply hasn't occured to them that the life of their child is at stake.

The Heimlich is not difficult to learn. The problem is the diea that we need to spend money to teach it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In Ohio you cannot take your baby home until they've shown you how to bathe it.The nurses already know the heimlich and the parents don't need to get certified so a quick demo or two and they are on their way. I would imagine if it wasn't overdone the cost for this would be minimal.

As to whether the parents learn it correctly, as I said they aren't being certified so if they fail to retain the knowledge they aren't any worse off than not being shown.

The grounds for doing so would be if it was done as simply as stated above the benefits outweigh the neglible cost of 10-15 minutes of the nurses' time (not ragging on nurses but that works out to about $8-10).

Before you try to argue that if a parent doesn't learn properly and their child dies there is a liability exposure I would point out that to date no one in Ohio has sued because their child drowned in the tub or was scalded by the water.

_________________

The cost is added to their medical expense for the birth itself, just as the cost of teaching how to bathe your baby is.

_________________

An excellent response.

But that doesn't address the "on what grounds" question. Moral imperative seems to be what you're indicating. Is that correct?

How do you know that "no one in Ohio has sued because [...]", are you a liability attorney?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There is already a plethora of federally funded (as well as state funded) programs that teach child care/safety to the poor for free. There are just as many low cost classes offered around the country. If people don't take advantage of them that's their own damn fault. I would be opposed to more government mandates, yes.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

On the grounds that from a CBA the public good would be best served by having the population trained (at least perfunctorily) on life-saving techniques.

As to the second part of your question, I spend pretty much all day on Lexisnexis checking for lawsuits for my job and haven't seen any cases filter through in Ohio for this. Admittedly I haven't gone out of my way to look for one either but it would be controversial enough and have effects far-reaching enought that it would have several references.

_________________

That isn't clear-cut. The public good might be better served, from a utilitarian perspective, by having ignorant/lazy parents not get education in the hopes the herd would be culled, as it were. Not necessarily advocating this position, just stating that a "CBA" must have terms set.



I would think that would depend almost wholly upon who won and how long the policy has been in place.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

According to insurance, [url="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html"]your life is worth $50,000/year[/url] which assuming my $10 price model held true would mean if you saved 1 in every 5,000 choking people (not infants or children since the heimlich is applicable to all people) and they survived for a year then you've broken even. Stanford studies from the article above indicate it is closer to $130k/yr but that seems ridiculous to me.



My sister was required to go through this "training" when my nephew was born so it has been at least 10 years.

_________________

That doesn't address my point.



So we're left with "who won". There's also the fact that training for prevention of an accident is not directly analogous with training of quasi-medical procedures.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

How does it fail to address your point? Economically it makes perfect sense. I must be missing your point, can you restate the question?



No it isn't which is why I specifically said they would not be required to be certified. We are not licensing them to perform CPR the Heimlich we would be showing them a life-saving technique.

(In-line edit for referencing CPR)

_________________

One of the hospitals here has a mandatory class for new parents (obviously with the caveat that you have scheduled to have the child there and isn't an emergency birth). Personally, I thought of the class as a pain the *** before taking it, since it was a 4 hour class on a Saturday morning and I already know CPR, but the information was really good and went well beyond just the CPR, to include the "don't freak out if this happens, its normal" stuff. This is of course in addition to the numerous pamphlets, etc.

As for mandatory CPR training in the interest of the "public good"... no... god no. Instead of having a population capable of saving someone should they start to choke, you would have a large majority of the population with just enough information to be dangerous. If people can't be interested enough/focused to figure out that driving while texting is deadly, I sure as hell don't want them thinking they can safely provide chest compressions. I mean hell, why not mandate that everyone learns how to give a tracheotomy as well... just in case the Heimlich isn't able to dislodge the obstruction.

Sorry I corrected my terminology above.

_________________

I imagine CPR/heimlich/whatever is different when applied to a infant vs a child vs an adult. How useful is the knowledge you learned in these hospital training classes when your child is 1 year old vs 4 vs 12?

_________________

Substantially different, but you are generally taught all 3 as part of training, then to keep your certification, have to "retrain" at regular intervals. This is how it currently works anyway.

Have we really just had an 8 page thread about hot dogs?

Hot dogs are serious **** business.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Wrong. I've said repeatedly that I'm not suggesting lots of people choke to death. Coro's math is irrelevant.

Show me math that says hot dogs don't produce more of a choking hazard than other foods.

False. It's surprisingly dangerous when compared to other foods typically given to children. Try again. It does not need to pose an overall heath risk for the above to be true.



Yes, nearly twice the choking rate of the next food.



I said toddler many, many times.



This has been defined, by me, several times in this thread. Unexpected, largely unknown, etc etc.



I think this is what I'm getting at? What is there to address here?



What is particularly true for parents?



So? What is to address here? What do you want?



False. Never once.



I said it would be one of at least two appropriate ways of disseminating the information.



That's a hell of a stretch there. I should get laid tonight, but not by the government (hopefully not).



I'm not. I'm working as hard as I can to make you guys see the simplest, most unassailable point on earth. Still, it's my responsibility to convey the message, so time goes on....

Yes, although I wouldn't be opposed to spending money on an outreach campaign to convince parents to pay for a class to learn this.

Um, "you cannot take your baby home" has so many problems behind it I don't even know where to start.

It is. The standard heimlich is not suggested for babies up to 2 years old.

Like I said earlier, it never ceases to amaze me what people will argue with.

Where's the problems? If you choose to have a baby in a hospital, then you temporarily surrender some rights.

I believe the "problems" would lie in the "surrender some rights" portion; although for a supporter of totalitarianism, that wouldn't be a problem at all.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko