I think one of the greatest public safety advances of the last 15 years has been the widespread installation of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Automated external defibrillators are medical devices designed to deliver an electrical shock to the heart in ventricular fibrillation – a cardiac rhythm that is commonly associated with cardiac arrest.
Figure 1: ECG of a heart devolving into ventricular fibrillation.
I was working in emergency medicine when medical device companies first began to advocate for the placement of AEDs in public places and worked closely with many companies, organizations, and government agencies to incorporate AEDs into their emergency response plans. This wasn’t an easy sell in the late 1990s. People were worried about safety, liability, and cost. But, AED programs have been a great success. AEDs are most effective when they are used within 3-5 minutes of arrest. For example, if you have a cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation in New York City, where bystander defibrillation is largely unavailable, your likelihood of survival is only 1-2%. If you were in Seattle, where defibrillation is more readily available and the public is well-trained, your likelihood of survival rises to ~30%. If you were in a Las Vegas casino, where AEDs are readily available and the staff is regularly trained in their use, your likelihood of survival approaches 74%. (See source of statistics here.)
I’ve been a long-time advocate for the widespread placement of AEDs. Ideally, they’d be as common as fire extinguishers. But, I’m not a fan of AED manufacturers taking advantage of tragedy.
On Tuesday, a 13 year old boy was killed during a baseball game after a pitch hit him in the chest. He had turned to bunt when the pitch struck him. From the story in the Huffington Post:
“He took an inside pitch right in the chest,” Jones said. “After that he took two steps to first base and collapsed.” He died the next morning at a local hospital.
The boy’s parents, who were at the game, are heartbroken, shocked and unable to speak to members of the media, league president and family spokesman Dale Thomas said.
“It’s a hard thing to handle for everyone,” Thomas said. “When you’re touched by something of this magnitude, it sends shock waves throughout the community.”
The untimely and unanticipated death of a child is always a tragedy. It’s a tragedy that often leaves people grasping for reasons and solutions. Manufacturer Cardiac Science took advantage of this by posting this to their Facebook page after the tragedy occurred:
Figure 2: “An AED might have helped.”
“An AED might have helped.” Except, probably not. There’s not evidence that an AED would have been useful at all. Their post might as well say “a rhinoceros and a banana might have helped.” Cause, you know, they might have.
As I noted above, AEDs are useful in the first 3-5 minutes after cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation. This unfortunate young man died the next morning while in the hospital. Not, while at the ballpark. There is no report that he needed to be defibrillated at the ballpark or that there wasn’t a defibrillator available when he needed one. He died many hours after leaving the ballpark while in a medical facility.
That leads me to conclude one thing – that Cardiac Science is taking advantage of our fear of unexpected death to sell a few more AEDs. They’re also potentially starting a dangerous round of “Could have, would have, should have” with people who knew this boy who might come across their post while searching for information about him immediately after his death. How heartbreaking must it be to think that there might have been technology that would have saved your child, even when it might not have. Especially when the suggestion is made by people with no firsthand knowledge of your child’s case.
If you look at Cardiac Science’s Facebook feed, you’ll notice that they have been on a campaign to bring AEDs to student athletic events and schools. It appears this young man is a pawn in their marketing campaign. Looks like these children are being used similarly. It feels heartless and cruel. Although AEDs may be lifesaving in these situations, these ends don’t necessarily justify these means.
Thing is, I can’t envision a pharmaceutical company getting away with these shenanigans. I can’t imagine the FDA not intervening if a pharmaceutical company maintained a blog where it displayed new stories and claimed that their product might have saved the decedent’s life, connecting individual, unconsenting faces to the drug. Perhaps that’s the dangerous bridge AED companies straddle – part medical device, part public safety device.
Part smidge of insensitivity?
*This blog post was originally published at On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess*