Her position is that although she was a trained EMT, she was mainly a dispatcher behind a terminal and that she was not in a position to render a hands on diagnosis and care.
The EMT boss was originally in favor of her being charges but then said
Was this a correct ruling? If you are an EMT are you only “on” when assigned to an ambulance?
As a side note I do find it a bit odd that dispatchers are required (if the article is correct) to be trained EMTs. Seems like using a trained EMT as a dispatcher is not the best use of resources.
The impression I got from the article (though it doesn’t make it clear) is that there isn’t anything she could have done, since she didn’t have any equipment—which she would have had if she had been “assigned to an ambulance.”
I am a 9-1-1 dispatcher but certainly no EMT. I do have a special certification as an Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD) that is specific to the 9-1-1 industry. Not sure why NYFD would train dispatchers to that much higher a level.
What was she supposed to do? It seems undisputed she didn’t have any equipment or medication with her. No matter how trained a person is, my understanding of asthma is that without medication or equipment she would not have been able to help. Further, a quick google suggest that she did in fact call 911, which under the circumstances seems like the only way she could actually help the patient.
She could have potentially given some reassurance to the patient and witnesses by going to look and hold her hand and would probably have avoided all the legal fallout by doing so, but I strongly suspect she wouldn’t have actually saved the patient’s life. I’d like to think I would have done and I do think it’s sad that she didn’t.
The linked article also raised my suspicion from the start by referring to her having “sneaked off”. Was she actually away from her post without authorisation? If so they should say so. If she was on a legitimate break then describing her as having sneaked off is underhanded and misleading.
Ultimately this kind of article implies that anyone with any medical or even first aid training whatsoever should be on a permanent 24/7 on call for the rest of their life. This is not reasonable or practical. People can’t always be saved even with the best care. People with medical training are entitled to have breaks, go to sleep, get drunk and live their lives when not on duty.
Even if she had equipment with her, the fact that she wasn’t proficient in delivering patient care to that population with that problem is enough reason for her not to deliver patient care. We’ve been talking about this a lot this week at work: being certified is not the same thing as being proficient. If you’re not proficient at a skill or task, you do not do it unsupervised. Period. I’m an RN. Technically according to my scope of practice, I can run an intrathecal pump. But I’ve never even so much as seen one. I’m licensed to do it, but I may not - ethically or according to the terms of my state’s Nurse Practice Act - do it until I’m trained in it and have safely used it under the supervision of someone else proficient in it. Only when I’ve developed proficiency - and that determination is up to me, not up to anyone else - may I do it unsupervised.
Same thing with an EMT. If you’re not proficient, you don’t do it. You ask for help and let someone who is proficient do it - and if she called 911, that’s exactly what she did.
Probably not.But every government agency I’ve worked for or closely with has a few of these. Correction officers/cops/social work types who do work that doesn’t require their education or training . Sometimes it’s because the person has a medical restriction keeping them from full duty and there’s a contractual obligation to give them light duty, sometimes to give someone close to retirement an easier assignment, sometimes because the person has a “hook” and sometimes because management is afraid to have the person work in their title but doesn’t have a concrete reason to terminate them.
I don't see where the article says that dispatchers are required to be EMTs, only that this EMT works as a dispatcher. But I wouldn't trust the article on details- it also says
I’m pretty sure the reporter didn’t mean “defendant”
Checking through some stories shows that there were emt personnel who weren’t too impressed with thier actions either. The boyfriend who was also an emt wasn’t charged because he got murdered 7 months later, and there was a dispute over whether he should have been buried with honours due to this issue.
There also was a civil suit over it, so its not too surprising that they ended up saying her actions were allowable as this would presumably have an impact on that suits outcome.
My impression is the main reason they were seen as not helping was because they were AWOL, and didnt want to get caught, rather than because protocol meant they couldn’t even check what was going on - I suspect if they’d just looked at her but said they couldn’t act as they were off duty and had no equipment, there was no chances of charges being laid.
Why, yes, I have been in a situation where someone is having an asthma attack. And I got them to the hospital, reassuring them while I could. And I’m not trained in anything, but I did what I could. Because that’s what human beings do for each other.
The article, if it is to be believed, describes a very despicable situation. If not for the 911 call, I would actually call her a murderer. If all she can do is very little, then you do that very little. If she were working, you might could argue she’d indirectly save more lives by dispatching other EMTs to other locations. But she wasn’t.
I don’t just believe that every medical personnel has a responsibility to help. I think every human being does, barring a more pressing concern. The fact that you don’t just think it an acceptable position, but actually “the right decision” disgusts me.
And, as I’ve told WhyNot before, when someone is dying, a chance you might be able to save them is better than nothing, and any system that doesn’t recognize that is inherently immoral. It is partly because of rules she states that I tell people not to trust medical personnel to have your best interests at heart and to do their own research.
So what would you do for a woman having an asthma attack? You have no gear and no meds, remember. You have very little training and no confidence in your skills. You’re not even entirely sure she’s having an asthma attack, just someone told you that. Maybe it’s an embolism, maybe it’s a stroke, maybe it’s a bee sting, maybe she’s allergic to something she just ate. So…go!
(Me? I’d call 911 if I was in a city, because they can transport a lot faster and more safely than I can in my car, and they’ve got equipment and training to help on the way. And maybe…maybe…make her a cup of black tea, which has some mild bronchodilating properties, but probably not enough to actually do anything before the paramedics get there.)
But I do agree that if this wasn’t really because she didn’t have the skills/tools, but rather because she was playing hookey and didn’t want to get caught, she’s a despicable human being. I just don’t know all the facts to make a true judgement here.
So you “got them to the hospital” golly that’s good of you. Sounds like you had a car at your disposal. How would you suggest a office worker on foot in a large business complex ( which is what Metrotech is, and incidentally the headquarters of FDNY) do that, other than by calling an ambulance? The nearest hospital is Brooklyn Hospial Center, approx a mile away.
Other than what she did (call 911) what should she have done that would have made any difference at all?
As for “sneaking off” the post is an cobservative tabloid rag and anything they say that seems to provoke an emotional response, particularly regarding a unionized employee, should be taken with approximately a pound of salt. Most likely, there was nothing wrong with her stepping out to get coffee.
I do not actively avoid situations where I see somebody needs my medical assistance. However, I also do not advertise myself as an EMT. My personal vehicle has no Star of Life on it. My name-badge comes off the moment I leave the premises. I only wear my tech pants when I’m working.
Whether I’m on the clock or not, I have a (definitely Moral, ambiguously Legal) Duty to Act. If I see a person in need, I assist in any way I can. Whether I have the tools I need, I still have the knowledge that may be able to help. (And I also have a cell phone, with working 9 and 1 keys on it.)
I work for a private ambulance service where all dispatchers are required to be EMT-B or higher. There are other services, both private and public, that will not hire a dispatcher who is also an EMT. The argument is something about having knowledge as an EMT that could be detrimental in an EMD situation. I haven’t had anybody give me any case studies, or even hypotheticals, but that’s the reason given when asked.
Maybe. But as an EMT and a human, you at least go see the patient, quickly asses the situation, and at least provide some level of emotional assist!
Pure speculation, but maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe existing EMTs are then trained to be EMD. This could happen for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a new inability to perform as an EMT (going on light-duty, for example, or taking your first toddler trauma patient and never wanting to go back to an ambulance again).
In any case, I think we can all agree on two things:
I wrote this reply before reading the entire thread.
Even worse is the lead paragraph, typical of rags like the New York Post. (Bolding mine.)
The typical New York [del]Torque[/del] Post recreational-outrage addict must be told, in what is purported to be a news story, what to think, right off the top, especially so in this case because of the mistake of including the information that she couldn’t have done anything anyway.
Sounds to me like people were aghast at her lack of compassion, and built a case against her because her actions offended them as human beings. And let’s face it, people judge women more harshly than men because women are expected to be nurturers.
The fact that the patient was beyond a layman’s help – and without any equipment, she was in fact a layman – saved her butt.
Depends on the state. About half the states have Duty to Act laws, in which EMTs (and I believe nurses and doctors) do have to stop and render aid as soon as possible if they witness a medical event when they are not working.
In other states, including mine, medical professionals do not have a duty to act outside of work hours/place. Last I knew, this was the case in New York.
However, ** if** I choose to help someone (when I’m not on duty and they’re not my patient) I have a duty to *keep helping until someone else arrives who has the credentials and training to take over. If I do 10 minutes of CPR and then shrug and say, “I’m outta here, gotta catch a bus,” then that’s abandonment, and I can be brought up in front of the nursing board to explain to them exactly why I think I should keep my license. But there’s nothing in my state’s license act that says I must act in the first place if A) I’m not at work, on the clock and B) The person in question is not already my patient.
*What I’m not sure is if that “and” should be an “or”. If I see a person who’s my patient choking on a burger at McD’s on a Sunday while I’m picking up a McWrap, do I have a duty to act because I have an open casefile that says I’m their nurse from June 1st until August 1st - even though that generally means I see them once a week at their home? I don’t know. I haven’t tried too hard to find out, because me being me, I’d try to help anyway, so it doesn’t matter to me what the law says.