RESUSCITATION METHODS

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26856, 8 October 1952, Page 6

RESUSCITATION METHODS

CHANGE TO HOLGER NIELSEN SYSTEM

DECISION CRITICISED

(Ntw Zaotand Pnu Aesoetatton) WELLINGTON. October 7. The Royal Life Saving Sodety’a change to the Holger NieUen method of artificial respiration was criticised by the preaident of the Wellington branch of the society , (Mr N. A. Ingram) at Its annual meeting last night. He told the meeting that his view was hi, own opinion and not that of in May. he’ said, the central executive of tne Royal Lite Saving Society tn London decided that a* from October 1 this year the Holger Nieisen method would be required, in addition to Schaefer’s, in all examinations which included a teat in resuscitation. "One i> inclined to believe,” added Mr Ingram, “that the central executive thinks the Hoiger Nielsen is far » efficient, but this branch has the Schaefer method highly suecesgful with the layman. It the Holjger Nielsen Is more effective, why are they both bracketed for an examination? And why the rush of time? ; "Every person who take* a certificate now lias to know both method*, but only about 50 per cent, know anything at present about th* recently sanctioned »y*tem. It would be far better if the Holger Nielson method had been taken in its entirety from October 1,” he said. In outlining the findings of a recent conference in Illinois, he said that the Schaefer method was found to have nine advantages and three disadvantages, and the Holger Nielsen seven advantages end four disadvantages. "I wonder what pressure was necessary to bring about the change,” he concluded.