How sad you haven't had a reply yet.

Can anyone give a good reason as to why we shouldn't have these schemes. The best chance fior an arrest victim is for a semi-trained responder to use an AED on them. A similar person using CPR alone is much more likely to be ineffective. I know that an AED alone isn't the best way to treat an arrest but in a semi or non trained set of hands it will give the best chance.

What we need are enough of them around to make a difference.

Alan

---

Best Wishes Alan www.wessex-medical.com

Fully agree, AEDs should always be readilly and quickly availble, the evidence is overwhealming that they save lives.

Unfortunately, some organizations have been putting them in locked cabinets - requiring sometimes minutes to access.

The British Heart Foundation and Resus Counil are thankfully rebelling against this prctice and refusing to finance such AED schemes: See BHF Statement

Also, in the US primarily - so far, the old question by individuals: "could I be sued for using an AED" is rapidly switching to organizations asking "will I be sued for NOT having an AED present".
A very good move, IMO.

BTW, in the BHF statement the say "Moreover the devices do not pose any threat to the safety of users or victims."

This echos my own beliefs that the presence of say water, or nitro-glycerine patches, and for that matter oxygen, aren't a danger.
(Ok, I wouldn't use an AED while kneeling in the same puddle as the victim.!!!)

The TV show Mythbusters went to extraordinary lengths to try and get an explosion from an AED and nitro-patches and even pure liquid nitroglycerine without success.

As for oxygen, it's not combustible itsself, it just helps combustible items to burn, and more fiercly. I've heard of several trainers who demonstrate this with a cigarette in the oxy tube - there's no jump-back into the cylinder, no explosion, no fire except at the cigarette tip.

iMike