Old Handbooks, First Aid and Tourniquets

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Our resident pooh-pooher of all things not current, I won't name him but his initials are Bob White, often says that the old handbooks are especially bad because of the out of date first aid information (somehow to him it makes sense to eliminate star charts because CPR has changed). Quite often he blathers about how the old way of using a tourniquet was dangerous, deadly, and EVIL.

 

I've been checking old handbooks first aid sections to see how they described the used of a tourniquet. I had gone back to the 50s without finding any thing significantly different than what is taught today. I found the same thing in the 40s. Now I'm looking at the third edition of the handbook, printed in 1936.

 

First it explains how to stop arterial bleeding using direct pressure (sound familiar?). The section on tourniquets is titled " 'Ware the Tourniquet" and starts off "A tourniquet is like a stick of dynamite . . .necessary at time but as deadly as that . . . high explosive unless used with skill and rare good judgement. It is seldom necessary to use a tourniquet." (emphasis original) Much of the rest of the section is dedicated to the dangers of the tourniquet, why they shouldn't be used and when they are contraindicated. Also included is the true story of how a poorly applied tourniquet cost someone his life.

 

Maybe we need to go back to the 1700s to find a handbook that gives bad gouge about tourniquets.

 

 

 

[CWKitchenStaffer 10]

True. I checked some old handbooks ( I only have them going back to the 50s) and found almost no mention of tourniquet usage. So, I guess unless BW remembers the 1936 handbook, he can't be complaining about any handbooks made during or after World War 2. Also, what was acceptable treatment "back in the day" is not common now. In the forties and fifties, soldiers put sulfalinomide on their wounds...not done today, but, it worked well when nothing better was available, sort of like tourniquets, way, way back when.