[NoR]

Originally Posted by franger

Unfortunately it happens in all walks of life. Someone comes along and writes down what the good people have always done and then they copyright it. They then go to the top people in the companies/organisations and sell their product.

In First Aid you are now not allowed to call abdominal thusts the Heimlich Maneuver as an American company has copyrigted the term and you have to pay them to use the term!

Madness! but there's a lot of it about.

[nav]

Getting back to the topic, I heard reports that a Moldovian girl went down on the Costa Concordia but I am sure she was put into a lifeboat by the captain.

[jed2]

Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett

I have been racking my brain to try to remember a remark by a Cunard Commodore who had command of one or both of the "Queens" in WW2 to the effect that having to be the last man of twelve thousand or so to leave the ship was not an encouraging prospect! Can anyone remember?

On p378 of 'Commodore', the 3rd volume of his autobiography, Sir James Bisset relates ...

... Each day there was an emergency drill, in case it was necessary to abandon ship. The Queen Mary had thirty lifeboats, capable of accommodating three thousand men, and enough life-rafts to support seventeen thousand men. The Military Commandant remarked to me fervently, "I hope it won't be necessary to abandon ship!". "Not as fervently as I hope it!" I said, and explained further, "The Captain must be the last to leave a sinking ship. I can't see myself having much chance at the end of a queue of 15,987 men on the boat deck!" ...

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally Posted by jed2

On p378 of 'Commodore', the 3rd volume of his autobiography, Sir James Bisset relates ...

... Each day there was an emergency drill, in case it was necessary to abandon ship. The Queen Mary had thirty lifeboats, capable of accommodating three thousand men, and enough life-rafts to support seventeen thousand men. The Military Commandant remarked to me fervently, "I hope it won't be necessary to abandon ship!". "Not as fervently as I hope it!" I said, and explained further, "The Captain must be the last to leave a sinking ship. I can't see myself having much chance at the end of a queue of 15,987 men on the boat deck!" ...

Thank you! I had read it, but had forgotten where I had done so. All three volumes are excellent - he was a gifted writer.

[jamesgpobog]

Originally Posted by franger

In First Aid you are now not allowed to call abdominal thusts the Heimlich Maneuver as an American company has copyrighted the term and you have to pay them to use the term!

I'm calling this B.S. until someone produces a legit source.

[Cisco]

Here you go... http://www.netplaces.com/poodle/emer...h-maneuver.htm

[jamesgpobog]

Originally Posted by Cisco

Here you go... http://www.netplaces.com/poodle/emer...h-maneuver.htm

I guess the poodle people paid the piper, huh?

[frangio]

Originally Posted by jamesgpobog

I'm calling this B.S. until someone produces a legit source.

See: http://heimlichinstitute.com/choking.php

Note the ® in a circle next to the Heimlich Maneuver. If the Red Cross, or any other First Aid trainer uses the term or puts it in their literature they have to pay the insitute!

[jamesgpobog]

Originally Posted by franger

See: http://heimlichinstitute.com/choking.php

Note the ® in a circle next to the Heimlich Maneuver. If the Red Cross, or any other First Aid trainer uses the term or puts it in their literature they have to pay the insitute!

I am not questioning the registration, I am questioning the claim that it's legitimate use in training literature or textbooks requires a fee. That is what I want sourced.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000834;p=0


This:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hei...oyalties,3036/


is satire.

[frangio]

Originally Posted by jamesgpobog

I am not questioning the registration, I am questioning the claim that it's legitimate use in training literature or textbooks requires a fee. That is what I want sourced.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000834;p=0


This:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hei...oyalties,3036/


is satire.

I renewed my First Aid qualification with the Red Cross last year, which is when I was told this. In their latest books all reference to Heimlich is removed and the term Abdominal Thrusts is used instead.

One would have to assume that an international organisation of the standing of the Red Cross would not have changed this for no reason and that their legal department would be involved!

[jamesgpobog]

Originally Posted by franger

I renewed my First Aid qualification with the Red Cross last year, which is when I was told this. In their latest books all reference to Heimlich is removed and the term Abdominal Thrusts is used instead.

One would have to assume that an international organisation of the standing of the Red Cross would not have changed this for no reason and that their legal department would be involved!

From the first link I provided:

According to our friends at Wikipedia, the Heimlich maneuver has fallen into disfavour with The American Heart Association, and that is the reason it is not being identified in recent books.
quote:

"His promotion of the use of the Heimlich maneuver for near-drowning rescue and for treating asthma has been dogged by allegations of case fraud based on the research of Dr. Heimlich's son, Peter M. Heimlich. The 2005 drowning rescue guidelines of the American Heart Association removed all citations or articles written by Dr. Heimlich and warn against the use of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning rescue as unproven and dangerous, since it may induce vomiting leading to aspiration."

My recent (2005) St. John Ambulance, first aid manual refers to "first aid for choking", "abdominal thrusts", and "chest thrusts".

This move (if true) by The American Heart Association could be what has led to rumours of "trademark violation".

[frangio]

Originally Posted by jamesgpobog

From the first link I provided:

So why would the institute register as a trademark a procedure if they did not intend to protect that trademark in some way? Surely it was not to restrict the use of an effective way of saving a choking person! The only other reason would be to generate income.

The procedure has not been discredited for choking, only for drowning and asthma. As an asthmatic myself the last thing I would want anyone doing if I had an attack would be abdominal thrusts! I have never been taught to use this method in over 40 years of First Aid training!

[jamesgpobog]

So why would the institute register as a trademark a procedure if they did not intend to protect that trademark in some way? Surely it was not to restrict the use of an effective way of saving a choking person! The only other reason would be to generate income.

No, there are other reasons to register a trademark, such as to prevent it's misuse or misappropriation. Again, that subject is covered in the provided link.

What has not been provided is a source for the claim that Heimlich is actively seeking payment for the use of their word. So far it is all speculation and hearsay.

[frangio]

Originally Posted by jamesgpobog

No, there are other reasons to register a trademark, such as to prevent it's misuse or misappropriation. Again, that subject is covered in the provided link.

What has not been provided is a source for the claim that Heimlich is actively seeking payment for the use of their word. So far it is all speculation and hearsay.

Well I can only tell what I have been told by the Red Cross. They still teach the same procedure for choking but have removed any reference to Heimlich. I can not see any way in which the Red Cross was misusing the name!

Just because we cannot find proof does not mean the claim is incorrect, or, for that matter, correct - it only means we cannot find proof!

[Mad Landsman]

As a former St John's first aid trainer my recollection of the use of the term 'Heimlich manoeuvre' was that it might have been in one reprint of the manual, but I cannot be certain - For as long as I can recall the procedure was officially termed abdominal thrusts.
We were told not to use the term Heimlich manoeuvre, but it was never satisfactorily explained why we should not do so.

In my copy of the 16th edition of Taber's (I must buy a new one!) the Heimlich maneuver is shown in full with credit to H.J.Heimlich, and no hint that it was any way a registered procedure.
Also mentioned is the so called Heimlich sign, which is where a person who is choking tends to hold their throat with the thumb and forefinger.

On a medical website that I use the only use of Heimlich is the Heimlich valve, aka flutter valve, which is used to treat a Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (collapsed lung).

Many Physicians and Surgeons give their names to some apparatus or procedure and medicine could be more complicated if the practitioner were prevented from using commonly accepted terms upon threat of legal writ.

[jamesgpobog]

Originally Posted by franger

Well I can only tell what I have been told by the Red Cross. They still teach the same procedure for choking but have removed any reference to Heimlich. I can not see any way in which the Red Cross was misusing the name!

Just because we cannot find proof does not mean the claim is incorrect, or, for that matter, correct - it only means we cannot find proof!

But don't you think that if it were true, there would be more to find than just hearsay? "That's what they told me in class."

Back in the 70's (and several more times since) the word of mouth was that the Proctor & Gamble logo a 'man-in-the-moon' crescent and some stars was a satanic symbol and the CEO, or president, or whomever, donated to the Church of Satan. Widely believed, and complete BS.

The fact that there is virtually NOTHING in this age of information, when with the click of a button we can find Dutch Nazi sex dwarf porn, sure weighs heavily toward the Heimlich story being just that...a story.

And were you told that info by the Red Cross, or by the Red Cross instructor? Is there any such statement with Red Cross imprimatur?

[frangio]

Originally Posted by jamesgpobog

But don't you think that if it were true, there would be more to find than just hearsay? "That's what they told me in class."

Back in the 70's (and several more times since) the word of mouth was that the Proctor & Gamble logo a 'man-in-the-moon' crescent and some stars was a satanic symbol and the CEO, or president, or whomever, donated to the Church of Satan. Widely believed, and complete BS.

The fact that there is virtually NOTHING in this age of information, when with the click of a button we can find Dutch Nazi sex dwarf porn, sure weighs heavily toward the Heimlich story being just that...a story.

And were you told that info by the Red Cross, or by the Red Cross instructor? Is there any such statement with Red Cross imprimatur?

All I am saying is that a lack of evidence cannot be used as proof for either argument.

But from their own publications: "Heimlich maneuver is a registered service mark of Heimlich Institute Foundation Inc.,
which reserves all rights to its use."

So they are obviously trying to control the use of the term.

Incidently some of it might be due to the fact that in Europe backslaps were always seen as the first part of the procedure before the abdominal thrusts. In the US, because Heimlich stated that backslaps could be fatal, it is only recently that the American Red Cross have introduced the backslaps.

And if you want to find such things as stated above on the internet, feel free!

[bjmt5r]

Where do the last 13 posts fit in with the OPs question? Is this yet another case, on this board, of "mine's bigger than yours."??

[Mad Landsman]

Originally Posted by bjmt5r

Where do the last 13 posts fit in with the OPs question? Is this yet another case, on this board, of "mine's bigger than yours."??

Absolutely nothing whatsoever - But if you think the spin-offs on this thread are irrelevant then look at the other 'Concordia' thread.

[gdynia]

the boys are enjoying themselves

[bobharrison2002]

Originally Posted by Mad Landsman

Absolutely nothing whatsoever - But if you think the spin-offs on this thread are irrelevant then look at the other 'Concordia' thread.

It just belongs behind a watertight door..........

[frangio]

Originally Posted by bjmt5r

Where do the last 13 posts fit in with the OPs question? Is this yet another case, on this board, of "mine's bigger than yours."??

Apologies for going off thread.

If it helps my answer would be: No, but he should stay with the ship until all are off or it is impossible to get any more off!

[Supergoods]

My very cynical thought on this is that the owner would be quite happy if the captain went down with the ship as he could then be blamed for everything bad and keep the owner pure as driven snow.
Ian