.............I am not sure what you mean by "nasty" and am even more confused over how someone could be sued for using QuickClot (or any other external hemosttic) appropriately and correctly. Under what legal theory would you suggest there exists a legal liability in such a situation?

As a disclaimer: I am a medical professional with a background in emergency medicne/trauma care, aeromedical and critical care. I have used QuickClot in a clinical setting, but have not used either Celox or Hemcon.

See my response above about being sued/charged.  So long as one does not go beyond their training, they are OK, but for the normal Joe I can see an ambulance chaser trying to sue you for using QuickClot or the like.  If it actually happens.......who knows, but there definitely remains the possibility.

Quote from: HiCarry on December 27, 2010, 04:19:02 PM

.............I am not sure what you mean by "nasty" and am even more confused over how someone could be sued for using QuickClot (or any other external hemosttic) appropriately and correctly. Under what legal theory would you suggest there exists a legal liability in such a situation?

As a disclaimer: I am a medical professional with a background in emergency medicne/trauma care, aeromedical and critical care. I have used QuickClot in a clinical setting, but have not used either Celox or Hemcon.

See my response above about being sued/charged.  So long as one does not go beyond their training, they are OK, but for the normal Joe I can see an ambulance chaser trying to sue you for using QuickClot or the like.  If it actually happens.......who knows, but there definitely remains the possibility.

QuickClot and other external hemostatic is designed for use by the lay public with minimal training. The good Samaritan Laws generally have two exclusioins for indeminification. The first is training, so in general don't do anything you are not trained to do. Reading the instructions on an over-the-counter product should suffice to satisify this requirement.

The second is negligence. And, in Hawaii statue it is "gross negligence" not just simple negligence. Gross negligence is a relitively high bar to overcome.

Don't get me wrong, I would never encourage anyone to perform a procedure they were not trained in or use a product that they were not familar with. But, the Good Samaritan laws were intended to allow lay and non-obligated responders to respond to a person in need without having to worry about subsequent litigation because of minor errors or acts of ommission. CPR is a good example - Even if you have not been "trained" you could probably do an adequate job of performing CPR if you needed to. Granted CPR is a relatively simple procedure and as the complexity of any procedure increases the need for adequate training increases. But, in general, if you have training and don't act with "gross negligence or wanton disregard" in providing any needed care, you should be protected by the Good Samaritan laws.

Thanks for the input HiCarry.  It's nice to get the perspective from someone in the profession.

Thanks for the input HiCarry.  It's nice to get the perspective from someone in the profession.

My pleasure...I don't presume to know everything, but I have been doing this for about 25 years now and try to keep up with developments in the area. I think it's important to keep my fellow "gunnies" informed......Thanks!

I was told by an independant duty corpsman with 20+ years experience that the best thing for a simple gunshot wound is a tampon.  Sounds stupid at first, but makes more sense if you think about it.  Any medics/corpsman/trauma surgeons agree that that's a good idea, or is that dumbest thing you've ever heard?  I'm just a regular joe with a liitle bit of advanced CPR training, so I'm not really qualified to say whether or not that was sage advice.

Tampons have been suggested for this purpose for a while, and there appears to be several real-world incidents where using them have been successful. However, I do not know of any studies that have demonstrated any advantage over the aformentioned hemostatics.

Bottom line: Use what you got.....

Tampons have been suggested for this purpose for a while, and there appears to be several real-world incidents where using them have been successful. However, I do not know of any studies that have demonstrated any advantage over the aformentioned hemostatics.

Bottom line: Use what you got.....

And we know some of these 'guys' have tampons (or should)

It seems like it would work, but it also seems awkward.  Your buddy's lying on the ground, bleeding all over the place, and you insert a tampon in the bullet hole.  "SHHHH**********TTT!  WTF, DUDE?!?  DID YOU JUST STAB MY BULLET HOLE WITH A F&%$ING TAMPON?!?

BE QUIET AND ROLLOVER. I GOT TO GET THIS PAD ON THE EXIT WOUND.

BE QUIET AND ROLLOVER. I GOT TO GET THIS PAD ON THE EXIT WOUND.

Keyboard, meet coffee.  Coffee, keyboard.

It seems like it would work, but it also seems awkward.  Your buddy's lying on the ground, bleeding all over the place, and you insert a tampon in the bullet hole.  "SHHHH**********TTT!  WTF, DUDE?!?  DID YOU JUST STAB MY BULLET HOLE WITH A F&%$ING TAMPON?!?

I bought a G35 7 years ago.  The running joke is it was a girl's car because the first aid kit came with a tampon.

If only I knew, I would have told others it was for a gunshot wound.

OK, I did a little research and found this article documenting the use of tampons for gunshot wounds (GSWs).

http://www.emsworld.com/print/EMS-Magazine/Lessons-From-the-Battlefield/1$10583

Good general article, but gets the physiologic mechanism of hemostatics incorrect.

...Then there was QuikClot, a powder that undergoes an exothermic reaction in the presence of blood, effectively cauterizing wounds it's poured into...

QuikClots works by removing the water componet from the blood and promoting a fibrin mesh to develop......

This thread is locked.

Hey guys, I got through ready this thread and it has a lot of good information.  I am not an EMT expert. However, having something is better that not having any first aide equipment at all. 
Do you want to save a buddies or family members life? (He or she might be a loved one or another Rifleman)  Just ask yourself that. 
Do you have any training? (We conducted simulations to stop gunshot wounds with our IFAKs on organic training aids) 
Have you been experienced working under stress while performing “buddy aid” in inhospitable environments? (Somewhere in South East Asia, our team leader was shot in the arm and the nearest CASH was a two hour drive north, we were trying to get a medivac but the aerial platform has been already committed for a more sever casualty. One member of the team has a tampon and inserted it and we started movement to the north)   
I am not trying to trump anyone’s experience.  Having something is better than nothing.  It is so easy to get wrapped around the axle when it comes to buying the best kit.  Having some kind of kit you feel confident to use is what I believe to be the bottom line up front.  Understand your surroundings and how to exploit it to save that injured person’s life.   Get training if possible and stay proficient.  I noticed a lot of “armchair warrior” on Blogs who can quote other website after website.   Hopefully, none of you will have to experience it, but if you have the skill sets to apply it, you should default to your highest level training.

OPPS Wrong post!

Tampons and maxi pads unscented +