RuhrowSpaghettio t1_j9ve58w wrote

This is true, but the amount of damage done by tourniquets is overstated, whereas the damage done by uncontrolled hemorrhage is…death.

Let’s say that, as you posited, only one of every hundred wounds needs a tourniquet to prevent death. If the perception is that tourniquets cause minor injury every time they’re used and permanent damage one time in 10, then you’ve hurt 99 people and caused permanent damage to 10 for every life saved with a torniquet.

Now let’s do the math if, say, you see minor injury one time in 10 and permanent damage once in 1000 applications. All of a sudden, you’re only causing 10 people minor harm for each life saved. Completely different math.


RuhrowSpaghettio t1_j9ivstu wrote

That’s the…presumed risk of tourniquets, but again, the data just isn’t there to show that much of a risk.

If you are just sitting there waiting for EMS, by all means continue holding pressure.

But if you need your hands for something else (like calling EMS) or you need to move, or you have multiple people you’re trying to help, or any other reason why sitting there with your hands ON the wound applying pressure isn’t sustainable…sure, apply the tourniquet.


RuhrowSpaghettio t1_j9gg01s wrote

It’s really not debatable. If someone is hemorrhaging, they will die of blood loss. Anyone who can do anything to help stem that blood loss is saving their life, no debate.

Plus, tbh, the risks of tourniquets are greatly over-stated in both popular culture and even in the medical world. All of the time limits people discuss for tourniquets are essentially made up theoretical limits without much data to back them up.