There are TWO follow up news reports, one that I “reposted” which is an okay but biased report, and the one that Telemark found. Im assuming you saw the sort of biased one.
Anyways, here is the newscast that for me…solves everything
Boy this is a mess, lol. Let me know if i forgot anything yet
[Bolding mine.]
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Which means, I have no words. 
As to the situation addressed in the OP (which may no longer be completely accurate due to further reports [but still in a hypothetical sense] – and the quote above), I can’t believe that a judgment is made when doing your job. I’m sorry, but if I sign up to be someone who can save a life, I can’t imagine thinking I’d would not be responsible for at least the attempt. If I wasn’t, why wouldn’t I do something else for a living then??
If you want to make that distinction on your personal time, then by all means do so. You have to live with yourself in the morning. But like others, I have a hard time understanding what else a LIFEguard is supposed to do. If they’re just there for the illusion of safety, anyone could be the token and training would be unnecessary.
Yeah, but you know homeless people are often sick and, well, one of them might have coughed on a rescuer (all that smoke around, you know). Better play it safe and watch from outside.
Seriously, I don’t understand how professional or semi-professional (or anyone, for that matter) could stand by and not attempt CPR on a child who needed it.* If you are so worried about risk, why even bother getting out of bed in the morning? I bet there is a greater risk of being run over by a car on your way to work than there is catching your death from a 3-year-old child.
*Subsequent reports may have rendered the point moot in this specific case, so take this as a “general principle” moment.
Those men in Worcester died trying to save people they believed were in the building. They did so because they believed, as I do, that humans in need of saving should be saved, if at all possible. The “Worcester Six” died looking for homeless people who were believed to be trapped, by a fire that, as it would later be discovered, they started in the first place.
The company got themselves in too deep, they got lost, seperated, and overtaken by the fire. Is it a risk accepted by those of us who do that kind of thing? Yep. Was it worth it? That’s a up to the person risking their lives, but to expect it automatically out of every responder is to show ignorace of the way things actually work. We don’t start the fires, we extinguish them, and in order to go on doing that for everyone who needs it done, calculated risks must be taken. You can NOT throw yourself headlong into every single situation without thought for the consequences. You do that, you won’t live long enough to make a difference. I can’t tell you how many situations I’ve responded to; countless home and building fires, fights/domestics, chases, car wrecks and shootings, and in the end, smart, calculated risks have allowed me to save lives, and to walk away from the experience.
As far as the OP, **Irishgirl ** is right, it’s up to the person in command, and ultimately the person on the ground whether or not to risk everything for another. The opinion of the public doesn’t always jibe with the reality of public service.
And I think that sucks. The proper statement should be, “You are a medical professional. If someone is dying in front of you, you do everything in your power to save them.”
I can’t believe medical professionals today would voluntarily give up a FIFTEEN PERCENT CHANCE TO SAVE A LIFE (your numbers) in order to protect themselves from the relatively minute chance of contracting a disease, most likely non-life threatening.
The statement made at the ALS training was probably bureaucratic ass-covering inserted by a lawyer who is worried about a lawsuit if an employee contracts TB or something and they weren’t adequately warned. I would not assume this statement constituted a moral imperative, or even sound moral thinking.
You know what? Even as a computer programmer, if I volunteer to be the ‘fire warden’ for my office floor, I’m accepting extra risk. It means I’m the last to leave the burning floor, and only after I’m satisfied that all other employees have left. Nowhere in the training for that do they say, “Oh, unless there’s some risk to you. In that case, screw the other people and get your ass out of there.”
Maybe that’s because the fire training comes from the fire department, and not corporate ass-coverers.
It’s not ETHICALLY acceptable. Don’t kid yourself. Just because they can’t force you to do it doesn’t mean that anyone who chooses to watch a three-year old die because they’re afraid they might get cooties is not still a selfish, chickenshit punk.
When did we turn into to such a profoundly selfish culture?
[More bolding mine.]
You see though, my opinion is that, if I had decided to be an emergency worker of some sort, I would feel that my job description meant I could possibly put in a situation that might require me to risk my life. If I wasn’t willing to accept that possibility, I wouldn’t take on that career. Would I then go willy-nilly into dangerous circumstances every time? No. Instead replace “willy-nilly” with consideration. If I was a lifeguard and had a drowning victim on my hands and did not have the mask used to prevent transmission of diseases, I’d improvise. Every time, as needed, no matter what. Because I’d see that as the job I signed up for. My decision and all.
Despite age, race, sex, orientation, health or status (like whether or not they were homeless). If I couldn’t handle that all being part of the package, then I’d choose to do something else. Obviously, others’ mileage varies and since they’ve chosen for themselves how to deal with these issues (if they’re a responder or not), then my opinion of them is equally disposable. ::: shrug ::: If I let a three year old die, I’m pretty sure I’d know that some anonymous person on the internet thinking I’m reprehensible would be the least of my concerns.
You see, I agree with the first part of this. Calculating risk is an important factor. No one would expect a fireman to walk into a flaming inferno with no fire gear on, and would call him a her if he did. However, if the dipshit was on duty, got on the damn firetruck without his gear, and then got to the site and said “I can’t help, I don’t have my gear!!” he would deserve a well-earned kick to the balls, and probably more.
When you agree to take on a job that requires you to risk your life within certain parameters, you make sure you are able to go to 100% of those parameters or don’t sign up for the damn job, as you’re just getting in the way.
ahem, that should be “…and would call him a HERO if he did.”
Calling him a her would be quite out of character for the situation.
I’d say when the first cell phone call was made. 
What if the time and money you spend posting to internet message boards could be spent to improve sanitation in some remote third world village and SAVE LIVES?
Would you do it? Or would you accept that the decision to go beyond the call of duty is an intensely personal one?
Yeah, sure, life would be better if EVERY medical professional gave their all into saving as many lives as they can. But of course, the truth is far from that. This ain’t a perfect world.
Honestly, I can’t believe that you can’t believe that 15% is a reasonable number for taking that risk. I think you may be downplaying the “minute chance” of contracting a disease. Maybe the diseases in question are either minor or rare. But like many have said…if you save people for a living, your chances of picking up diseases is much higher. Even if you contract that non-threatening disease, that puts you OUT OF WORK for a few days, weeks, months…and thats just time you could’ve been spending saving someone’s life.
Bottom line. You can’t save everyone. Its not about ABSOLUTES. Its not about being a hero. Its about being the most efficient. Its about being professional, knowing your statistics/data to get the most positive work accomplished.
I agree that there’s a triage aspect to this sort of situation. I disagree that that triage depends on the worth of the person needing rescue, as evaluated by the potential rescuer. Yes, people do risk their lives to help others. They may be, variously, professionals whose job includes this (medical personnel, soldiers, firefighters, etc.) or volunteers (people who took CPR courses in order to be helpful to their communities, etc.). Volunteers get more leeway. Professionals need to evaluate their actions based on how badly injured the person is, risk to the professional etc. Not on the person’s ascribed merits (viz the “Anne Coulter vs. Fred Phelps” thread).
**TB, SARS and Hepatitis B and C **Reasonable considerations, but
TB a) can be treated; b) is something everybody’s already been exposed to; c) is something all healthcare workers and teachers are exposed to so frequently that there’s periodic testing for it in those professions.
I was required to have vaccination against Hepatitis B even though I wasn’t working in a direct care setting. My understanding is that the A/B series has become standard for at least some districts.
I assume that the risk of contracting HCV from bloody vomit is lower than the risk from needlestick.
Here’s the biggest problem I have with all this:
Part of what motivates people in society is the set of expectations that constitute the ‘norm’. For first responders, we have encouraged them to be who they are by praising heroism, shunning cowardice, and in general rewarding them for being the kind of people willing to take these risks. Firefighters get respect because they are willing to put their lives on the line for others. And because they are respected for it, they have developed a credo that codifies that kind of behaviour. They live and breathe it, and it’s that credo that causes them to strap on the gear and run into a building that everyone else is running out of.
When we start ‘understanding’ those who refuse their duty, and downplaying the heroics of those who do, we damage this culture. Assuming those lifeguards did what the OP claimed, perhaps it was because they were raised in a culture that downplays heroism and venerates risk-avoidance, and were trained by people more worried about avoiding liability lawsuits than in doing the right thing.
I remember reading an article by Robert Heinlein in which he described a scene where a hobo saw a woman with her foot stuck in a railroad track switch. Her husband was trying to get her free, and so the hobo ran to help. And all of them kept at it until the train hit them, killing all. His comment was, “This is how a man lives - and this is how a man dies.”
Now, whether or not that story is true, it’s the kind of story we used to pass around in our culture as an example of great moral behaviour. And it was this kind of story that kids would be brought up on, internalize, and use as guidance for behaviour in extreme circumstances. Or they’d decide to be firemen or police officers because they wanted to be that kind of man.
Now, a tale like that is likely to be told as a cautionary tale of not watching for the train when you’re helping someone, or how stupid it is to walk on railroad tracks, or how stupid the 3rd guy was to risk his life for a total stranger.
Nope. I’d call him a fool. He’d be endangering his life and his family going in with nothing on, likely, his insurance and pension wouldn’t cover him if he got hurt.
That, I agree with. I’ve forgotten parts of my PPE coming up to a scene and went in anyway. My stupidity or forgetfulness isn’t the fault of the victim, so, as faithfool suggested, I’d make do with what I had, at least to a point.
If I were of a very strong suspicion that you were a troll with nefarious motives, I would report you. I am not so sure, however you have malicious intent here.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt then, and assume instead that you are a blithering shithead.
Both stories refer to the same press conference, in case that was not clear to you.
At this self-same press conference, a reporter asked whether the department had spoken to any eyewitnesses who were at the beach before issuing their assessment of the event. Their answer was no.
So the only report they have of what happened and the appropriateness of the lifeguards actions comes from the lifeguards themselves, who have every reason to lie or at least spin the facts in their favor. I personally can smell the BS from all the way over here across the country.
Here’s a list of ear nose and throat specialists in your area. Seriously, you need treatment.
scotandrsn, believe what you want, I won’t condemn you for it. I personally believe the press conference and the lifeguard’s side of the story over the eyewitnesses. Normal people panic in such situations. Trained lifeguards generally do not.
If you think the press conference is BS…like the eye-witnessnes could be just as well BS, right? So that means ur opinion is that no one can be sure? Or do you take the side of the eye-witnesses?
Sam Stone, good points. My personal morals tends to downplay Heroism, because I believe it can be a sense of false hope. I would rather live a semi-coward than die a “failed” hero. But some people would easily disagree with me.
…This is the sort of thing that movies portray alot, and if you think about it, should Superman risk his life to save one woman? Because the death of superman would be more tragic than the death of one woman. But then he would be called a coward, a murderer if he did nothing? Again I stand on one side, but many of us differ, I’m sure
What utter bullshit.
“Significant.” :rolleyes:
Someone needs to learn something about statistics, and then get some fucking perspective.
A worthy pit.
In a nutshell. Well said.
As a slight hijack, it astonishes me the extent to which people will go to avoid incredibly negligible risks (such as catching HIV from a 3-year old), whilst simultaneously treating as blase vastly more significant risks (such as driving a car, drinking alcohol, or smoking cigarettes).
I attend one of those every year. More bureaucratic ass-covering. This IS the ‘good old days’. You think your chances of getting ill from someone’s blood was significantly less 50 years ago? The only thing that’s changed is that we are way more risk-averse now than we were then. In some ways this is a good thing, but in others it’s not. It’s all about perspective.
I hope what you got out of the blood-borne pathogens course was, “Be aware that blood can be dangerous - don’t clean it up with your bare hands and a paper towel. Don’t drop it in a regular wastebasket where others might inadvertently handle it. Use your head.”
If instead what you took away was, “Blood is as dangerous as radioactive waste! Therefore, if your co-worker accidentally cuts his femoral artery and blood is spraying all over, run for the hills! Let him die unless someone in a HAZMAT suit happens to be handy to staunch the bleeding”… then the corporate suits have succeeded in scaring you to the point where their own liability is protected at the expense of the actual people working for them.
There was a news article a while ago about a young woman who was in a car accident. Her father was on the scene, and he is an emergency room doctor trained in trauma. The police wouldn’t let him get to his OWN DAUGHTER to help her, because he wasn’t ‘official rescue personnel’. In fact, they arrested him and charged him with obstructing police officers and resisting arrest or some such because he struggled with them as they held him back from assisting his own daughter. Those cops ought to be ridiculed for what they did, but instead I heard all kinds of mealymouthed nonsense about how they needed to follow procedure, and how important it was to maintain the integrity of the accident scene, yada yada. How about using their freaking judgement? You need a doc, and here’s one on the scene. Let him through. This is the kind of thing we never used to think twice about. It was just common sense. But common sense and good judgement have been replaced by rules and procedures and ‘awareness training’ and general bullshit.