Sorry to differ with your differing, but if he were choking on a strawberry (he wasn't), you would NOT use mouth-to-mouth in order to dislodge the obstruction. You might apply the heel of the palm to his upper back, or the more common Heimlich Maneuver. Breathing into his mouth would serve no purpose, other than to lodge the obstruction further into his esophageal passage. The only time you would use mouth-to-mouth in this situation is if the victim has lost consciousness, and AFTER removing the obstruction, to help restart breathing.
In the situation outlined in the movie, the mouth-to-mouth would be appropriate treatment for anaphylactic shock if the victim could not breathe on their own. This seems logical here, but it would need to be accompanied by a shot of epinephrine, OR emergency services. There was no EPI pen. The lawyer began going to the phone to call 9-1-1, only to stop when the child entered the frame. This scene skipped over the caveat to the m2m treatment and therefor fails the realism test. Perhaps they would have been better served to have given Isabella's character access to an EPI pen. I assume they were available in the early 90's... However, realism was sacrificed to the gods of poetry and romanticism, and for that they can be forgiven.
"We are here to help the Vietnamese, bc inside every *beep* there is an American trying to get out"
reply
share