This interview was originally published on August 13, 2005, at the original Dean of Cincinnati blog.  We are still exploring options for establishing an online archive of that work, but in the meanwhile I will post some of the more popular and still timely articles here at The Cincinnati Beacon…

The Dean: It is my understanding that Dr. Heimlich approached City Council in the early 1990’s, trying to get policy changed in regards to his maneuver for drowning.  In what capacity did you work with Dr. Heimlich on this matter?

Todd Portune: At the time I was Chair of Council’s Law and Public Safety Committee.  Dr, Heimlich approached me in that capacity to discuss a matter of great public safety in that he wanted the city’s Recreation Commission to officially adopt the heimlich Maneuver as the first response to a drowning victim for use by the city’s lifeguards.  Cincinnati maintained, at the time, about 52 pools throughout the city.  The lifeguards were all Red Cross trained in using CPR as the first response.

I believe that Dr. Patrick was also involved as a part of the effort at persuading the city council to move in this direction.  I do know that Heimlich Institute members were present during many of our official discussions and that Institute information was distributed.

The Dean: What kind of medical documentation or other evidence did he provide to bolster his claims concerning the maneuver for drowning?

Todd Portune: I don’t have specific recollection of this though I am certain that the Clerk’s office at City Council would have a record of all of the information presented.  I do recall it was information maintained by the Heimlich Institute and that anecdotal information was a part of it.  We had asked for scientific/medical peer reviewed information and I recall some information was presented in an effort to respond to those requests.

I have since seen information posted that is the same kind of material we received except the recently posted items contain a more “complete” version of the material.  In other words we, on Council, were presented with a version that suggested the medical community’s objections were addressed and that Heimlich was receiving support for his theory.  I have recently seen materials that contain a complete picture of those interactions and that present a different conclusion.

The Dean: For many people not familiar with the medical research, Dr. Heimlich’s claims sound very obvious and believable.  What happened that caused you to question the veracity of his arguments?

Todd Portune: First and foremost our Recreation officials were wary of making any change and they alerted us to the fact that the Red Cross had a strong disagreement with Dr. Heimlich on this.  They were cautious because of the obvious potential political ramifications given that Phil Heimlich was a Member of Council at the time, but they did attempt to steer us to other respected sources.  As Chair I had great respect for our Recreation officials; for the local chapter of the American Red Cross and for the gravity of the situation in that lives hung in the balance on what we did. My initial inclination was that Heimlich’s presentation made sense so I began the review inclined to recommend a change.  The more I studied, reviewed and consulted, the more educated I became about the mechanics of drowning and that what was being presented by Dr. Heimlich and the institue instead was not supported by the literature or by the medical profession.  In the end the opposition of the American Red Cross coupled with the magnitude of the evidence against using the Heimlich Maneuver resulted in our staying the course.  I remember being concerned that there would be some editorial or political backlash, but there actually was none.

The Dean: How did Dr. Heimlich respond to medical evidence contradicting his position on the maneuver for drowning?

Todd Portune: Dr. Heimlich personally stayed pretty clear of the whole thing and took a rather low key approach as did his team.  As I recall it was pretty much passed off as a case of professional rivalry rather than a real medical debate from their perspective.

The Dean: How did Dr. Heimlich respond when you did not change the guidelines for City lifeguards?  Did you experience any backlash, from either media, local politicians, etc?

Todd Portune:  As I said above there was no backlash - at least none that I was aware of.  Dr. Heimlich was very gracious for our effort and our time and gave no hint of ill will or recrimination.

The Dean: Has any of this history ever had an impact on your working relationship with Commissioner Phil Heimlich, Dr. Heimlich’s son?

Todd Portune: None at all as far as I am aware.  Phil stayed clear of the entire discussion from my recollection and at the time took a very professional and ethical approach.

The Dean: Did you know that Phil Heimlich served as the Vice President on the Heimlich Institute Board?

Todd Portune: No I did not.  I have come to find out over the past year or so that he does.

The Dean: I have wondered if Phil’s interest in Drake somehow relates to his father’s work and the Heimlich Institute.  Phil has been steadfast in his desire to cut Drake’s funding, even appointing people like Chris Finney to the Drake board.  In your opinion, what drives Phil’s campaign against Drake and why do you fight him on that point?

Todd Portune: Well, I fight Phil on the Drake Hospital issue because he is just flat out wrong about Drake and because of a bigger issue at stake - namely that the results of elections mean nothiong if people can do after an election what Phil has tried to do regarding the funding that the voters approved for Drake.  Phil and his supporters made their arguments and they lost.  They won’t give up and in the process are trying to do to Drake what they could not accomplish at the ballot box.

Beyond that, we need Drake Hospital in our community because no other hospital is as capable of providing the specialized rehabilatative care for severe brain and spinal cord injury patients as Drake.

Commissioner Heimlich’s opposition and the zeal behind it makes little sense.  On paper you could make the argument that the Institute has had some bearing on Phil’s unwavering attack to break up Drake and open up its nursing home; skilled nursing and other profitable arms of service for bidding or taking by private operators, though in fairness I have to assert that there is no direct evidence of the same.  The Heimlich Institute is one of Five Charter operations of an entity known as Deaconess Associates Inc. [DAI] The remaining four DAI operations include Deaconess Hospital and three other for profit arms of health care that dovetail directly with Drake’s line of business outside the long term acute care.  In DAI’s 2003 annual report it discusses that it was looking to 2004 as the year to aggressively pursue new profitable business pportunities.  2004 of course is the year of the Heimlich led attack on Drake Hospital and the effort to open up Drake’s nursing home and skilled nursing operations for the taking by private operators.

At no time did DAI ever issue a statement that it had no intention of pusuing the Drake lines of business.  In fairness, however, I have been told that DAI and the Heimlich Institute are in the process of severing their relationship so that might argue against any connection at all.  In addition, the above is simply connecting some dots on paper.  It is one conclusion of many that could be drawn including others that argue against a connection.  And I must also say in fairness that I am personally unaware of any specific effort at targeting Drake by DAI, or the Heimlich Institute, or Phil for business reasons.  Given the ethical scrutiny we are all under and the publicly available information above it would be extremely reckless for Phil to do so and if anything he is a very careful and cautious person which, of course, also argues against such a connection.

The bottom line is I have no personal knowledge of such.

Note from Todd Portune: A friend of mine forwarded to me a news clipping suggesting our review on this was in June of 1993.  I could not remember the exact date or dates. While I do have some recall of Recreation officials being concerned about political ramifications and Phil Heimlich, Phil was not elected to Council until November 1993 and sworn in December 1, 1993.  He, of course, was a prominent candidate during the summer of 1993.

Accordingly, if our review actually was in the summer of 1993 Phil would not have been on council and that may account for my recall that he stayed away from the debate [stayed away because he actually was not there].

This was all a long time ago and I am recalling as best I can.

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!