Oxygen Use in TV and Movies

By Jackie English

2 min read

Have you ever noticed oxygen patients on TV shows or movies?

It’s something that I never paid too much attention to before they put me on oxygen, even though I had worked in both hospitals and nursing homes.

Supplemental oxygen use in television

Here are some TV shows that I have noticed it in and my thoughts on how it was used:

The Ozarks: Buddy is the gentleman that the Byrde family buys the house from when they get there.
It’s funny how long they can make those tanks last. I also noticed that when he was in his house or sleeping in his house, he would use tanks as well. No concentrator to be found. He must be getting up a few times during the night to change those tanks. The oxygen company would be tired of delivering several times a week.

The Sons of Anarchy: The character Piney Winston used to carry around a small M2 tank. If they set him on 2L pulse mode, that would give him only 1.5 hours of oxygen. Not much at all. He would have gone through many tanks on those motorcycle rides.

Mike and Molly: In this TV series, Mike’s mom Peggy wore oxygen several times. She had a D tank sitting by her chair for a few episodes. Again, that would need a lot of tank changes. They took it out in the rest of the seasons, though.

Of course, with all of these, a tank is a better visual effect than an oxygen concentrator.

Supplemental oxygen use in movies

Some of the movies that I have seen that use oxygen are:

Five Feet Apart: This a beautifully made movie about two young people with Cystic Fibrosis who fall in love and must keep a safe distance from each other so they don’t give each other their lung infections. I think they did a good job with the oxygen use in this film.

Fault In Our Stars: This is a story of two teenagers who fall in love while battling cancer. This was also beautifully made, and they did okay with her oxygen use, although they never showed her changing her tanks, even though she would have gone through many of them.

The Sessions: This was a movie made where the main character had polio-related paralysis and used an iron lung. An iron lung is a medical respirator that helps a person breathe. The device creates a vacuum inside a large metal chamber that encases the patient's body from the neck down, allowing air to flow in and out of the patient's lungs) throughout the movie to assist breathing. I don’t know if that was accurate or not, though.

I’m sure many more tv shows and movies have used oxygen. I am glad they bring some awareness to oxygen use, but I wish they would show everything that goes along with it and explain more. We all know that it takes much more than what they show.

What are your thoughts on this? Can you think of any movies or TV shows that I have missed? Please share in the comments below.

This article represents the opinions, thoughts, and experiences of the author; none of this content has been paid for by any advertiser. The COPD.net team does not recommend or endorse any products or treatments discussed herein. Learn more about how we maintain editorial integrity here.

Join the conversation

Please read our rules before commenting.

CommunityMember525 Member
A few important reasons why we see oxygen tanks instead of other 'oxygen producing equipment on TV and in movies: 1.) The general public wouldn't recognize oxygen from a source other than maybe a flowmeter plugged into the wall - in a hospital setting - and from tanks when it's being used in a portable capacity. Oxygen tanks are pretty recognizable and easily found in a Google search for the curious. 2.) If you introduce devices like stationary concentrators and portable oxygen concentrators (POC's), you tread on proprietary issues. Permissions would have to be obtained to show a given device. You risk appearing to promote whatever device(s) you choose to feature. So, the proprietary 'can of worms' comes into play - issues that I suspect producers and other decision-makers choose not to take on when they can simply use the generic tanks. 3.) Consider that some folks at home might see a 'dainty little POC' used - whether or not it is appropriate for the setting or portrayed user condition. As we in the clinical realm know all too well, there continues to be a dilemma with too many patients out in the LTOT world using the wrong concentrator for their needs simply because they don't want to - or can't - manage to handle the oxygen source that would more appropriately meet their needs for adequate oxygen provision. They might be driven to try to obtain what they see on TV or in the movies - appropriate or not. Again, the question of promotion of a brand might enter the picture (pun intended). 3.) 
1. HateSigningInCareyje Member
 <inline-mention username="CommunityMember525" user-id="4315023"/> - do you work in the entertainment field? I think you are way over estimating the proprietary arguments from a legal framework. Companies love free advertising, and firms such as Phillips Respironics support and subsidize the images (such as Russell Winwood’s participating in marathons all over the world) to get positive image recognition. They may not like a storyline showing violent themes or illegal activities, in which case they may require their name / labeling to be obscured, but they can’t stop anyone from using readily available equipment for any purchase the buyer or user desires. Sincerely, Lawyer-wanna-be from my days spent working for the big fruit company in Cupertino CA
2. Jackie English Moderator & Contributor
 Great point, <inline-mention username="CommunityMember525" user-id="4315023"/>, thank you for sharing! Best, Jackie (Author/Moderator)
hite1955 Member
The PROGRAMME should SHOW the CONCENTRATOR and TANK and how to take CARE of Them to be RELEATISIC
HateSigningInCareyje Member
The reason they use tanks vs the plugged in concentrator in TV and movies is the noise factor. Any time I run across another Inogen or cylinder tank user, I always marvel at how noisy ALL concentrators are. While the Inogen, for example, should be quiet, if you use it on the max setting, it’s anything but. Ditto, Philips Respironics SimplyGo. People who are strong enough prefer the peace and quiet of the cylinders. I am supposed to be on oxygen 24x7x365, but I can’t lift the cylinder tanks, plus my oxygen provider has repeatedly refused to provide anything but a travel “loaner” (and only when I’m leaving the state). You can’t have the latent noise competing with the dialog. Is it any wonder that Hollywood doesn’t understand or choose to have folks using wall-plug concentrators or portable units?
1. John Bottrell, RRT Moderator & Contributor
 <inline-mention username="HateSigningInCareyje" user-id="8534730"/> Thank you for your comment here. As a respiratory therapist, I too am prone to making observations such as this. I always find it odd how movies are almost always medically incorrect -- even on shows such as ER. I think you have a good theory (the noise factor) as to why Hollywood uses tanks as opposed to concentrators. Several years ago I worked as a respiratory therapist for a home health care company, and I observed that many of my patients who were on oxygen had their oxygen concentrators in another room to keep the noise down. Perhaps this would be an idea for Hollywood, should they choose show oxygen users in a more "realistic" setting. What do you think? John. <a href='http://copd.net' target='_blank'>copd.net</a> community moderator. 
2. CommunityMember525 Member
 <inline-mention username="HateSigningInCareyje" user-id="8534730"/> Your points - and complaints - are appreciated and well taken. No, I do not "work in the entertainment industry. Among my examples, I cited the advantage that manufacturers might relish having their products gain visibility through placement in TV/movie scenes - even paying to have products featured. The one factor in any of those equations is "permission" and "license" to display. - or sponsorship. But, it comes with an agreement with the manufacturer, to begin with. I know Russell Winwood well and have followed - and communicated with him directly - for many years. As you point out Respironics has supported him in his athletic endeavors as a way to advertise and generate goodwill through him and the visibility they reap through his endeavors. At conferences over the years, our fellow LTOT experts have discussed the topic of the 'legal' issues of oxygen products being used in entertainment venues. so, I draw my notions from that information. While I can claim NO authority in my suggested reasons given, I would argue that AND ask - being that its "staged and acting" - what makes you think that they'd actually have the machines turned ON and "making all that racket" as you suggest?? The fact that it was noted that tanks as small as B-cylinders were spotted in one show kind of thwarts your contention that the e-tanks are too hard to handle. AND, I'll bet that even those tanks are/were not "operating" (actually delivering flow). Even they would make "some degree" of uninvited noise pollution on the set, if not other than for the hissing noise of the oxygen going into a mask or through a cannula. I would still suggest that using a concentrator without context - the obvious connection of the cannula to the machine, for instance - would go unrecognized by all but those who actually use them or are familiar with them. I can appreciate your complaint about "dark ages" equipment and the noise and lack of manageability of portable systems - especially those capable of providing close to enough flow to meet the needs of MANY in the LTOT community. For more than 40 years I've fought and complained about and advocated for better more manageable portable LTOT systems. CMS, who pays for the overwhelming amount of oxygen used in the USA has been absolutely obstinate about designating enough reimbursement to cover the cost of LOX, arguably the more quiet among system choices and certainly more "schlep-able" as Dr Petty used to say. I worked for a manufacturer of portable oxygen concentrators - one of the things we were trying to affect was the noise level of our devices - trying to reduce it, that is. I am not without having had much personal experience beyond my professional involvement with LTOT as my daughter was born with Cystic Fibrosis. By age 16 she required oxygen for her failing lungs. We used LOX, both stationary and portable, concentrators, tanks and test-used a POC or two. One of her chief complaints was that with her LOX portable oxygen flowing at the 6 - 8 Lmin she required while sitting in church, the noise was noticeable for MANY feet around us. People constantly glanced at us/her - sometimes with sympathetic faces, sometimes with annoyance. When she attended classes at college, she was asked to sit in the back of the room so the noise was not so obtrusive to the rest of the classroom. She had no choice. We put up with the heat and the noise of high flow concentrators in our home. LOX turned out to be the most manageable system for her with her high-flow needs. we carried a small 30-pound reservoir in our car to refill her portables from as they would last only a couple of hours at her flow needs of 12 L/min when she was up and about. So, I'm sympathetic to your noisy equipment complaints. we traveled back and forth from San Antonio, TX to St Louis on the many trips for her transplant evaluations and then her TWO lung transplant procedures. It was a godsend. But, it was a hassle, none the less. I'm curious to know what you expect that your attendance to the COPD Foundation's Conference will accomplish with regard to getting anything done about the lousy choices of equipment available to oxygen users? I certainly welcome you to join us in the long-fought battle we've been fighting. Another advocate is a good thing. They have been 'fighting the good fight' along with the many of use and a myriad of professional medical organizations for MANY years - trying to gain increased government support for the betterment of the oxygen-using community and those who manufacture the equipment. Your voice will certainly add to the many who have already said their piece. But, yours will also be one of MANY who've not yet been successful in jarring the conscience of those with the purse strings. Some folks argue that manufacturers are not doing enough to devise newer and better systems to produce and supply oxygen. It is true that the "sieve-extraction" technology is the same system that was in the original concentrators we had when they came to market back in the 1980's. The problem is no one has been able to come up with a better system that is both safe and sufficient to produce enough oxygen for flowrates needed by so many. And I'm talking about flowrates of 3 L/min and more. For a short time, chemical reactive production of oxygen was studied. But, the problem is that it produced so much heat in the process that it proved to be both uncontainable and unsafe as a potential portable technology. So, we're back to being 'stuck with' sieve-extraction technology. The main problem with that is that in order to produce enough oxygen (which, BTW, is only about 96 % pure, at best) devices able to produce high flows are way too heavy and bulky to be practical and manageable for those who need them the most. Consider the Sequal line of POC's which can produce up to 3 L/min of continuous flow, but can split it up into large enough 'pulsed boluses' of 192 ml/breath AND only up to a rate of 15 breaths-per-minute. The downside of the Sequal's is that they weigh over 15 pounds and must be toted about using a cart. And they're LOUD. And they have a limited battery duration capability - so, yet MORE stuff to tote around to keep it in service for extended periods away from a stationary source of electricity. I know a bit about this as one of the projects we were working on over 10 years ago was trying to find a way to increase the efficiency extraction rate and quantity of oxygen we could get with the current technology. We were not the only company working on this type of effort. The fact is that because oxygen separation technology using ambient air, being dependent upon both chemistry and physics continues to be the only practical and safe means of producing oxygen short of 'fractional distillation', which is the means by which liquid oxygen is produced. So far LOX is the only system reliably capable of providing more - with the Companion T-1000 able to deliver 15 L/min continuous flow. It weighs 12 pounds, though and is difficult to handle for folks who actually require that amount of oxygen! I wish you well with your noble fight of 62 years and counting! AND, I hope that you are not skimping to your detriment on using the oxygen you need to keep healthy and safe! Lastly, welcome to the fight!
cobnana Member
I am on 5 lpm on exertion. I have been on oxygen for 10 yrs now. I refill my tanks with a machine and a concentrator. It takes at least 6 or 7 hrs to fill a knee high tank, not sure if that is a C or D tank. I found this very very long. Does anyone else do this and it takes this long??? ty
1. Leon Lebowitz, RRT Member
 <inline-mention username="cobnana" user-id="6685084"/> Hi cobnana, and thanks for your post. I hear you and understand the challenge you are managing. Six to seven hours to fill a "C" size or "D" size oxygen cylinder sounds like an unusually long period of time. If your equipment is new/modern and working properly, you may want to look into this further. Perhaps you can reach out for the company which supplies you with cylinders and the transfilling equipment too. Please do check back and let us know how this all turns out for you. Good luck! Leon (site moderator <a href='http://COPD.net' target='_blank'>COPD.net</a>)
2. Jackie English Moderator & Contributor
 Hi, <inline-mention username="cobnana" user-id="6685084"/> ! I agree with <inline-mention username="Leon Lebowitz, RRT" user-id="2445532"/> . I think that it does sound like a long time to fill. I haven't had to deal with that but know others who do. I would talk to your oxygen supply company. Best, Jackie (Author/Moderator)