Talk:Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation

message: E.M.T. Paul Cahill Ireland on my first venture in to Wikipedia land here. The reference to not giving breaths to a weakly breathing person needs to be corrected or at least expanded.In most ems systems people give rescue breaths when people are not breathing effectively, for an example in Ireland an E.M.T. would support an adults breathing if it feel below 10 breaths per minute and one of two other factors applied spo2 below,90% on 100% o2 or insufficient chest rise. ref www.phecc.ie .
:I went on a St John's Ambulance Course, and what they said seems to back up the above. They said that AR should be performed either if the patient wasn't breathing, or if breathing was irregular (there was a technical term for it that began with "a", but I can't for the life of me remember it...)Paul-b4 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR 

message: I believe rescue breathing should be seperate from artifical respiration.--ItsJodo (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rescue Breathing

message: I am wondering whether anyone has any information about what the time limit is as to when one can administer AR in relation to the lung complaint...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not050 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The following comment left on the main page by IP user:	
(perhaps this article could adress the rate at which breaths are given, see references 2&3 below)
OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion moved from mainspace 

message: I wrote a screenplay, set in 1882, in which a doctor performs mouth-to-mouth on a patient, quoting the Bible as justification: “And God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” It's almost common sense. Are there records of mouth-to-mouth being used prior to the 20th century? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: history of artificial respiration

message: Suggest title should be expired air resuscitation, with redirects. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a toss-up between WP:COMMON and "inaccurate". Mouth-to-mouth comes up as WP:COMMON 40-1  and "mouth-to-nose" does come up as a sub-type of "Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation". "Rescue breathing" seems to come up as a more common term than "expired air resuscitation". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rescue breathing is not much used where I come from, but at least it covers all the options far better than the highly specific mouth-to mouth. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The preferred use of a pocket mask to decrease risk of infection is also not covered by the title. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouth to nose variant excluded by title 

message: I just noticed some recent fixes and still some remaining problems, e.g. from this 2011 vandalism.  I'll fix this one.  Someone should take a good pass over this article if they have the patience for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Needs sourcing, but looks OK. No obvious vandalism found. Meters (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The History section is close paraphrasing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition. Public domain, I believe, so not a copyvio, but we still need to acknowledge the source. I seem to remember there is a template somewhere for doing that. Meters (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: found it. Done Meters (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you copy "HUMANE SOCIETY, ROYAL" from another article?  Can't be right. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have botched something. I'll figure it out. Meters (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to use the Sect1911 template to link to  the Wikisource page https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Humane_Society,_Royal Meters (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

text: done, thanks. Mistakenly used the caps from the text rather than sentence case form the URL.. Meters (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, such long-persisting vandalism 

message: The lead section is easy to understand. Also, The article has neutral content and reliable sources. On the other hand, I think that the article will be more complete with more information and reliable sources. Also, I'm according to Peter Southwood, about the mouth to nose variant that is excluded by title. Gloria Andrea (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osmosis - Peer review