Lifeguards refused to give CPR - BYSTANDERS revive 3 year old drowning victim.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I think one of the greatest thrills in life is saving someone else’s. Moreso for a three year old.

To allow bystanders to perform your professional duties for you, for which you trained and even get paid is incomprehensible.

Is mouth to mouth on a stranger more dangerous than kissing someone who you have never met before ?

[susan]

There is a significant chance that a three-year-old is HIV positive

[QUOTENot in the U.S. there isn’t.

In 2004, there were only 48 new cases of AIDS reported in children under 13 in the U.S. From the beginning of the epidemic (so including transfusion, mother-to-child, and other transmission factors, plus no prophylaxis for HIV-exposed infants, ther have only been 9,443 cases reported in the U.S. in this age group. [html=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsage]
CDC

[QUOTE]
HIV infection of newborns [infected by their mothers] has been almost eradicated in the United States due to appropriate treatment. [html=http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/hivinf.htm]NIAID

[/QUOTE]

[Sam_Stone]

@Shoshana

[QUOTENot in the U.S. there isn’t.

In 2004, there were only 48 new cases of AIDS reported in children under 13 in the U.S. From the beginning of the epidemic (so including transfusion, mother-to-child, and other transmission factors, plus no prophylaxis for HIV-exposed infants, ther have only been 9,443 cases reported in the U.S. in this age group. [html=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsage]
CDC

And even if there was a significant risk that the kid was HIV+, the odds of contracting AIDS through mouth-to-mouth are extremely low.

And even if they weren’t, I still expect the lifeguard to do his damned job. In fact, I expect him to take much greater risks than that.

[mks57]

@Sam Stone

And even if they weren’t, I still expect the lifeguard to do his damned job. In fact, I expect him to take much greater risks than that.

I expect to find one million dollars on my doorstep.

(cue crickets)

[Ale]

Wow, appaling; who wants to bet that if some hot bimbo on skimpy swimwear would have requested a a little “CPR” on some concealed spot they wouldn´t have worried about protection for the “mouth to mouth”?

[NurseCarmen]

@Ale

Wow, appaling; who wants to bet that if some hot bimbo on skimpy swimwear would have requested a a little “CPR” on some concealed spot they wouldn´t have worried about protection for the “mouth to mouth”?

I’ll be right there!

[kezami]

What would be the of risk of contracting a seriously life-threatening disease from mouth-to-mouth contact with a 3-year-old? How about infinitesmally small.

What would be the benefit of saving the child’s life? Any guesses?

I have a hard time believing the lifeguard was human.

[YWalker]

@Telemark

I agree, mouthguards and gloves should be SOP at the lifeguard station. But 99% of what a lifeguard does has nothing do with emergency responses. Carrying them with the guards doesn’t makes sense, but the other guards should be running over with the mouth guards and gloves.

The lifeguards at our Y all wear little fanny packs with emergency equipment. They’re very small, and it’s not a difficult thing to do. I think that any facility that hires lifeguards, yet doesn’t equip them the ridiculously inexpensive equipment that they need to — you know, save lives — has major problems.

I’ll second what others have said. I took first responder training years ago, and have had regular CPR and standard first aid refreshers in recent years. The first thing they tell you is to protect yourself. I remember hearing questions about the ethical dilemma of standing back and doing nothing if you didn’t happen to have your handy CPR kit with you, and our instructors usually said it was up to us. Personally, I always thought that I’d improvise — as others said, do it through a baggie, or possibly a piece of cloth. Additionally, I would have my own personal triage. I’d be much more likely to risk it for a young child drowning victim (lower likelihood of disease transmission, high likelihood of being able to save their life via CPR) than I would an adult heart attack victim at a convenience store (unknown disease risk, low likelihood of saving their life.)

I did attempt CPR on someone once over a decade ago when someone who lived in my apartment complex came banging on doors asking if anyone knew CPR. I blew in a few breaths, and the guy started to barf in my mouth. It scared the hell out of me. Fortunately, the ambulance arrived right about then, so I just left.

[Typo_Negative]

@BobLibDem

I’d rather save the 3 year old and risk harm to myself than live with the guilt of standing by and watching him die.

I agree with this and with the words of DTC and Sam Stone. These fucks have no business being lifeguards. I can’t imagine anyone making a conscious choice to not act and let another die because of the risk of catching a disease. Why *in the world * would anyone who could make that choice have went through CPR training???

[Boyo_Jim]

I am CPR-certified, and I got that training because I thought I mght one day save a life with it. It is my personal belief that that I accepted a certain degree of responsibility when I made the decision to take the course. I simply cannot understand refusing to use such training if the situation arose where it was needed. Maybe I will understand it better if I ever am in such a situation, and fortunately I haven’t been.

These lifguards are responsible from at leact one perspective. They must have known they didn’t have the proper protective eqiuipment – if they were not prepared save lives under those conditions, they should have quit – or made damn sure to get the gear for themselves. It’s so cheap (you can get a CPR mask for less than 10 bucks), even a highschool kid could afford to buy one.

They must have known at some level that they were merely providing the illusion of protection to the kids at the pond. That is unacceptable.

[wolf_meister]

I clicked on the link that Annie provided for the updated story. As Annie said it is biased heavily on the side of the park, the lifeguards, etc. This excerpt is interesting:

After the DCR gave their statement, CBS4’s Eileen Curran asked if they spoke with anyone on the beach who was present during the incident. They said no.

This is somewhat analagous to:
Do the lifegaurds know CPR? Sure
Do they carry mouthguards and gloves for that? No :smack:

[Telemark]

From the latest article in the globe:

But officials at the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, which manages the Milton pond, said lifeguards determined that because the boy had a pulse he didn’t need CPR.

“We are confident that our lifeguards in fact made the appropriate determination about what was needed, what the boy needed, and acted properly,” DCR Commissioner Stephen Burrington said at a news conference at the pond.

At one point, he added, one of the lifeguards did administer two short breaths in the child’s mouth, contradicting witnesses’ statements. Mouthguards were available, but the lifeguard didn’t use it when giving the two short breaths, Burrington said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/08/07/officials_defend_lifeguards_caution_crowds/

Sounds like the situation isn’t quite like the initial reports.

[Rhubarb]

I’m not going to defend the lifeguards’ actions, or lack of same, but I can imagine another possibility as to why their training forbids them to perform MtM without a shield.

Imagine this scenario - lifeguard successfully performs CPR on drowning victim, but in the process transmits HIV, herpes, mononucleosis, black plague, whatever TO the victim. Said victim then sues lifeguard and employer for multi-jillion dollars for allowing lifeguard to perform CPR without required safety measures. As the lifeguard is a trained professional, good samaritan laws might not protect them from litigation.

Does this sound at all feasible to anyone else?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Rhubarb

I’m not going to defend the lifeguards’ actions, or lack of same, but I can imagine another possibility as to why their training forbids them to perform MtM without a shield.

Imagine this scenario - lifeguard successfully performs CPR on drowning victim, but in the process transmits HIV, herpes, mononucleosis, black plague, whatever TO the victim. Said victim then sues lifeguard and employer for multi-jillion dollars for allowing lifeguard to perform CPR without required safety measures. As the lifeguard is a trained professional, good samaritan laws might not protect them from litigation.

Does this sound at all feasible to anyone else?

First, it is completely incorrect to say that their CPR training “forbids” treatment without protective gear. The American Heart Association creates national CPR training standards, and I’ve had that training, and there is no such provision.

Second, I would consider your scenario barely conceivable. “Feasible” is too strong a term. Also, what are the odds that more than one lifeguard at the pool would be concerned about spreading disease TO the child? Virtually zero.

[Heckxx]

I feel like i have to post Annie’s link again

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_219122422.html

To me, this doesn’t prove that anything definite happened, but it proves that we do not know what EXACTLY happened.

Bottom line is…the boy lives. If the boy was in a more critical state at when the lifeguards were with him, I’m sure they would’ve done something. But the fact that many people were involved with a critical/semi-critical state of the boy, and that people’s opinions on when the boy needed CPR or not…and that the lifeguards did eventually find the mouthpiece…its too vague for me to put my facts on anything.

[Frogmore]

@Zabali_Clawbane

Can’t newborns get herpes (and possibly other STDs) from their mother via being born naturally? That would be a concern surely?

I would gladly take a very tiny chance of contracting oral herpes to save a child’s life.

What kind of person decides to avoid a very remote risk of harm to themself for a very real death for a small child in front of them?

By the same logic the lifeguards should refuse to get in the water to save someone because they ‘might’ drown themselves.

Cowards.

[Rhubarb]

@Boyo Jim

First, it is **completely incorrect ** to say that their CPR training “forbids” treatment without protective gear. The American Heart Association creates national CPR training standards, and I’ve had that training, and there is no such provision.

Second, I would consider your scenario barely conceivable. “Feasible” is too strong a term. Also, what are the odds that more than one lifeguard at the pool would be concerned about spreading disease TO the child? Virtually zero.

First, I did not realize you were present during their training. I’m not saying that the standard set by the American Heart Association requires a mouth shield (although it recommends it strongly), I’m saying that their employer might to protect themselves from litigation by an unscrupulous individual.
Second, I am not speaking to the lifeguards’ state of mind, rather to the state of mind of their employer who provided that training.

[Frogmore]

@Rhubarb

First, I did not realize you were present during their training. I’m not saying that the standard set by the American Heart Association requires a mouth shield (although it recommends it strongly), I’m saying that their employer might to protect themselves from litigation by an unscrupulous individual.
Second, I am not speaking to the lifeguards’ state of mind, rather to the state of mind of their employer who provided that training.

Fuck that shit.

Do you honestly believe the employer said it would be better for liability purposes to let someone die then to take the remote chance of passing a disease to them.

Somehow I think the lawsuit for watching a child die would be worse then the lawsuit for giving a child mono.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Heckxx

I feel like i have to post Annie’s link again

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_219122422.html

To me, this doesn’t prove that anything definite happened, but it proves that we do not know what EXACTLY happened.

Bottom line is…the boy lives. If the boy was in a more critical state at when the lifeguards were with him, I’m sure they would’ve done something. But the fact that many people were involved with a critical/semi-critical state of the boy, and that people’s opinions on when the boy needed CPR or not…and that the lifeguards did eventually find the mouthpiece…its too vague for me to put my facts on anything.

If you admit you don’t know what happened, how can you POSSIBLY conclude “If the boy was in a more critical state at when the lifeguards were with him, I’m sure they would’ve done something.”

BTW, what is a more critical state than having lungs full of water and not breathing? Which is apparently what all the eyewitnesses who were willing to speak claimed.

Not to mention that the followup story contains some very questionable claims that smell of bullshit to me. Specifically:

The lifeguards determined the child had a pulse and saw he was spitting up and vomiting. At that point, officials say the lifeguards determined the victim did not need CPR. They propped the boy up so he could continue spitting up and throwing up.

Shortly after propping up the child, officials say the lifeguards thought the 3-year-old might need CPR. They say the lifeguards began administering CPR without a protective mask.

If he was spitting up and vomiting and had a puse, it would have been almost impossible (and wrong) for the civilians there to administer cpr. In fact, it;s extremely unlikely they eould have tried, so they would need to be lying about thisl The lifeguards later thought he might need cpr? And gave him some? Maybe if the kid had flopped over and stopped breathing AGAIN, which no one claimed. And they eyewitnesses at the beach directly and specifically contradicted the “official” version. The story was damage control, nothing more and nothing less.

[Slacker]

@Boyo Jim

If he was spitting up and vomiting and had a puse, it would have been almost impossible (and wrong) for the civilians there to administer cpr.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. That line reeks of CYA. We’re supposed to believe that everything was OK, the lifeguards were checking this kid out, and these women rushed in and started chest compressions and mtm on a conscious victim? Give me a break.