After receiving critical letters from the presidents of the National Council Against Health Fraud, the US Lifesaving Association, and Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune, The Enquirer today posted a “clarification” concerning Saturday’s “Pool Safety” spread which encouraged people to use the Heimlich Maneuver on near-drowning victims.  (To see our coverage, click here.) Still, their clarification leaves lots to be desired.

The so-called clarification actually consists of this confusing paragraph:

The Enquirer presents Heimlich’s views alongside the medical establishment’s as if there is some kind of legitimate “debate” concerning proper rescue protocol.  This cannot be farther from the truth:  every credible medical association in the world has warned against using the Heimlich Maneuver for near-drowning.

Additionally, the graphic (a scanned image of which you can see here) includes information that medical research has proven untrue.  Dr. Heimlich says that one must use his technique in order to remove water from the lungs—though water does not actually enter the lungs during near-drowning due to something called laryngospasm.  But check out the Enquirer’s graphic.  It says one must use the Maneuver until water stops coming from the mouth.  All the time spent making someone vomit instead of performing rescue breathing is a moment that can cause serious injury or even death.

Why does The Enquirer even bother to give Dr. Heimlich ink on this issue?  He has been discredited time and again.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. anon says:
   29 May 2006  at  10:20 am | #

   This is appalling. Heimlich has zero credibility and the Enquirer knows it. Yet, even after being fully informed that the maneuver for drowning is utterly discredited and deadly, they simply reprint the same garbage with a disclaimer.

   Making a mistake the first time around is one thing. The paper could have pleaded incompetence and set the record straight. But this revision is willful. By continuing to ignore the science, the Enquirer is knowingly putting people at risk. If it turns out they are doing this as a political favor to Phil Heimlich, it’s disgusting. Callinan needs to name names. Who wrote this and who made the editorial decisions?

   Gannett needs to be informed. Sue Clark-Johnson is president of their Newspaper Division. Write her at and copy the Dean at

2. Philthy Phil says:
   29 May 2006  at  10:55 am | #

   Detering democracy isn’t enough for the ego-maniacs at the Enquirer, now they are putting kids at risk with quacky propaganda.

3. says:
   30 May 2006  at  06:11 am | #

   Ironically, from today’s Enquirer:

   Alert boy, lifeguard save toddler
   BY CLIFF RADEL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

   ST. BERNARD - Kelsey Keiner may never forget her first day on the job.

   The 16-year-old lifeguard at the St. Bernard Aquatic Center saved the life of a 2-year-old boy Monday.

   And, she had a huge assist from 10-year-old Tyler Hausfeld. The fifth-grader and son of St. Bernard firefighter Jay Hausfeld was making his way to the pool’s water slide late on Memorial Day afternoon when he noticed the child “with his face down in the water.”
   ADVERTISEMENT

   The little boy was in the pool’s wading area.

   When Tyler reached him, he turned the 2-year-old over and saw that his lips “were real purple. So, I called for the lifeguard.

   “She came over right away. The little boy wasn’t breathing. The lifeguard performed CPR and got him breathing again.”

   Police could not provide the name of the 2-year-old. He was taken to the hospital and his condition was not available.

   Kelsey was unavailable for comment.

   “I’m glad he wasn’t hurt,” Tyler said. “I was just happy to help.”

   He said he knew “a little bit of CPR” from his dad and his cousin “who learned about it in school.”

   The lifesaving actions of Tyler and Kelsey left St. Bernard Police Lt. Bill Ungruhe breathing a sigh of relief.

   Standing by his cruiser as swimmers quietly filed out of the aquatic center toward the end of just the second day of the pool’s 2006 season, the officer reflected on what could have been

   “I’ve lived in St. Bernard all of my life and I’ve been doing this job for 10 years,” Ungruhe said. “We’ve never had a tragedy at the city pool. And I hope we never do.”

4. anon says:
   30 May 2006  at  09:55 am | #

   The lifeguard performed CPR and got him breathing again.

   This goes to the heart of the legal issue and why the Enquirer was stupid to publish instructions for performing the Heimlich maneuver on near-drowning victims.

   If, perish the thought, the St. Bernard boy had a poor outcome, the lifeguard and his employer would still have protection against liability lawsuits under Good Samaritan law because the lifeguard provided the proper medical treatment, that is, CPR.

   However, if the lifeguard had performed the Heimlich maneuver (or any other unapproved, experimental) treatment and the boy had suffered harm or died, the lifeguard and his employer could be sued into the next century for providing medical care outside approved guidelines. And if the lifeguard or the bystander claimed that they did the Heimlich because of what they read in the Enquirer, then the plaintiff might have a strong case against the paper.

   It’s still unclear why the Enquirer printed this garbage in the first place. Dean, have you written to the editor?

5. says:
   08 Jun 2006  at  07:45 pm | #

   From the desk of Prof. Fig Newton:

   It looks like we are getting a little more specific about the Heimlich maneuver.
   Thanks. However, just fyi, a new CPR protocol is now in place which calls for 30 chest compressions for a FBAO unconscious victim.

   Prof. Fig Newton