angelikaJ
Posts: 8641
Joined: 6/22/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: goodpuddles puddles is not looking for a one line answer of "yes it's really rare", or "no it's perfectly fine most of the time". puddles is looking for balanced information as there is some information on line, but most is saying things about fad with teenagers, lethal etc. puddles is trying to understand the basics and what is bad. is simply choking a little ok? or is any and all pressure bad? one or two articles is just simply not enough information to make any kind of decision. how does one determine the validity of the claims of the individual making the claims without sufficient background. puddles is trying to educate herself about the practice because it's definitely a head rush of immense proportions, but just because something feels good doesn't mean one should do it. puddles guesses that it isn't as if there will be a lot of investigative scientific type research papers describing exactly what is going on and what is good/bad since it is a practice frowned upon, but everything in life has risks. it's understanding the risks, truly understanding the risks to understand whether it's a risk that one wants to take. Puddles...here is a section of one of the Jay Wiseman articles I linked to: "As a person with years of medical education and experience, I know of no way whatsoever that either suffocation or strangulation can be done in a way that does not intrinsically put the recipient at risk of cardiac arrest. (There are also numerous additional risks; more on them later.) Furthermore, and my *biggest* concern, I know of no reliable way to determine when such a cardiac arrest has become imminent. Often the first detectable sign that an arrest is approaching is the arrest itself. Furthermore, if the recipient does arrest, the probability of resuscitating them, even with optimal CPR, is distinctly small. Thus the recipient is dead and their partner, if any, is in a very perilous legal situation. (The authorities could consider such deaths first-degree murders until proven otherwise, with the burden of such proof being on the defendant). There are also the real and major concerns of the surviving partner's own life-long remorse to having caused such a death, and the trauma to the friends and family members of both parties. Some breath control fans say that what they do is acceptably safe because they do not take what they do up to the point of unconsciousness. I find this statement worrisome for two reasons: (1) You can't really know when a person is about to go unconscious until they actually do so, thus it's extremely difficult to know where the actual point of unconsciousness is until you actually reach it. (2) More importantly, unconsciousness is a *symptom*, not a condition in and of itself. It has numerous underlying causes ranging from simple fainting to cardiac arrest, and which of these will cause the unconsciousness cannot be known in advance. I have discussed my concerns regarding breath control with well over a dozen SM-positive physicians, and with numerous other SM-positive health professionals, and all share my concerns. We have discussed how breath control might be done in a way that is not life-threatening, and come up blank. We have discussed how the risk might be significantly reduced, and come up blank. We have discussed how it might be determined that an arrest is imminent, and come up blank. Indeed, so far not one (repeat, not one) single physician, nurse, paramedic, chiropractor, physiologist, or other person with substantial training in how a human body works has been willing to step forth and teach a form of breath control play that they are willing to assert is acceptably safe -- i.e., does not put the recipient at imminent, unpredictable risk of dying. I believe this fact makes a major statement. "
< Message edited by angelikaJ -- 4/20/2008 5:17:08 AM >
|