Yep. People have strange selective views on things.

I was standing with the car at the crossing where it enters the main road. A kid came racing down the bike path from the local primary school on his scooter and tried to get around my car without wasting speed, i.e. slowing down. Physics said: "NO" in no uncertain terms, and the kid kissed the road in front of my car. I got out to help, but he already got up, probably more annoyed about loosing speed than anything else, answered negative on my inquiry if he was hurt or needed help, and was off like lighting.

Two days later, the police was at my door, responding to a neighbors claim that I had run over a kid that day...

A man stopped my son with his hand from crossing at the signal because a car didn’t see him and could have mowed him down. I think a lot about how that could have gone badly if the man had second guessed himself for even a moment. Legally and socially, we need to be on the side of anyone who makes a split second decision to help in a crisis.

Exactly. As much as I believe in being a good person and trying to stop others from coming to harm, there is now a not-nonsignificant chance that I end up being prosecuted for something as a result of stepping in to attempt to save a life. It deincentivizes such activities.

One of the few cases where consent of anything can be assumed is lifesaving of a person unable to respond. One of the first steps of cpr is to seek a response to ensure that the person is unconscious before then confirming no pulse.

But yeah I get why it’s awkward

Understandable, but you only need to do it if there is no pulse. If you are doing chest compressions to save their life, I am sure the majority would be quite happy with not dying. You don't need to take off their top, and you are pressing on their sternum rather than their breasts. You can't really mistake CPR for anything else if you are doing it correctly.

"I was trying to save your life."

"Ugh are you still talking to me?"

Just take the shorts off before helping

Was it illegal there to touch a woman while wearing shorts?

Imagine dying because some old puritan assholes decided at some point that female nips are inherently offensive but male nips are fine. Humanity can be so idiotic sometimes

If I saw someone with a defibrillator ripping the clothes off an unconscious woman, I don't think I would suspect foul play.

It does not have to be life over dignity. There can be a middle ground they could at least provide a cover while doing their thing. I know a teen girl who changed school, did therapy and tried to sue because she once had a seizure and they stripped her naked in front everyone to save her. Her "friends" took video of her and spread it all over their school. As awful as it sounds I'm not making this up.

I just did red cross CPR and AED training last week, and the materials said the clothes all need to come off (or pulled up or whatever - off the chest) but chest hair doesn't need to be shaved. Presumably the instructions change periodically.

The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it's within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we're talking about tens of thousands here.

Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.

Another important caveat is that we're assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it's a separate issue entirely.

In germany, you need to take an 8 hour first aid course to get your driver's license.

It's better than nothing, but it's been 5 years for me and I'm not sure if I could still do it properly.

I... don't think that's the reason why people would avoid specifically CPR, specifically in a public place.