Actually, the whole mouth-to-mouth issue is one of the big advantages that proponents of compression-only CPR put forth. We can't force people to be Good Samaritans, but if we can make it easier or more palatable by, say, making CPR simpler or teaching that just doing chest compressions is OK, then that's a worthwhile change to consider. Again, I say this in the context that there is evidence that compression-only CPR does have evidence backing it up but it's not conclusive yet.

Actually, there are places in the country that teach compression-only CPR. I have read that the University of Arizona and some places in Wisconsin teach it to the public. I have read that an important article on compression-only CPR will be published early next year.

I would say that if you have any hesitation about doing mouth-to-mouth on someone (and assuming the unconcious, not moving, not breathing conditions), then you'll still be doing the person a service by doing compression-only CPR. But I'm not a doctor (nor a lawyer!) and this is just my personal opinion.

Experts say most real world CPR is done incorrectly anyway, so simply pressing hard on that sternum steadily at 100 reptitions per minute until EMS arrives will do this person a world of good compared to wasting 20 seconds making "Do I have to?" faces before giving each puff of breath while doing regular CPR. Or worse, doing nothing at all, while the person dies. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />