Acid attacks in London have drawn attention to a vicious, mutilating and life-changing scourge, the existence of which many might never have suspected in the UK. London is being referred to as the ‘corrosive capital’ of the UK, with close to 1500 acid attacks reported over the last 6 years.
The response to an acid attack in London will be typically by the LAS. Their official guidelines for the public are on their website. Before the ambulance arrives, the victim and anyone in a position to help may or may not have seen the LAS guidelines or those in several newspaper reports, published in the wake of the recent attacks. Specific advice about what to do is now provided in many well-known journals.
Over time, these are likely to fade from popular memory. It is reasonable to speculate that many might do a quick Google search for advice on the mobile phone if caught in a situation where it becomes necessary to help a victim. This would present an invidious dilemma. It is possible that several options are revealed on the internet including a reference to Wikipedia.
Looking through these, as part of the background work for this commentary, it was noted that copious irrigation with clean water was a universal theme as an on-the-spot treatment for acid attacks, but the LAS advice appeared lower down in the Google listing, while one of the main references on Wikipedia did not actually give any guidance on treatment.
While Google has mastered the art of prioritising the results of its search engine to benefit its commercial interests (for which it was recently fined), it did not present the official first aid information at the top of the search list for acid attack. It is not unreasonable to hope, if not expect, that Google can and perhaps should highlight the official LAS first aid advice in its listing.
Only a few of the newspapers gave a credible source for their recommendations of treatment. It is likely that the public would find such a reference reassuring, especially due to anxiety about unreliable web-based information. The most worrying finding was the comment section on some newspaper websites, where contributors were making wrong and/or dangerous claims in favour of certain kinds of ‘alternative’ treatment backed by pseudo-science.
As in many other domains, the way we live now is not always reflected in the quality of the information that is made available by Google searches, even in the life and limb critical areas, the public can not be expected to do multiple searches in an emergency. It is therefore increasingly important to moderate and modify the way we search and find our sources of life and limb saving information in an emergency as the public, and even as professionals.