I’ve started a Great Debates thread where the issues here can be discussed with civility, one might hope.
Getting back to the OP, it does seem that there is some controversy about what actually happened. Notwithstanding whether the lifeguards did their jobs properly or not, it is appalling to me that so many people rushed to defend the OP’s complaint.
A sign on an empty guardhouse saying, “No Lifeguard On Duty, Swim at your own risk” would have been as useful as these lifeguards.
The lifeguards present were employees of the state. The taxpayers attending the beach assume the state bothers to pay these asswipes to be the person who steps in when there is an emergency.
I have renewed my infant and child CPR and First Aid certification any number of times, and one of the very first things you learn in training is that a person in trouble is in more danger in a crowd than they are with only one person is around, because in the former case, there is less certainty about who needs to do what.
That’s part of the reason we have lifeguards at public swimming facilities, so that there is someone who knows whose job it is to step in.
According to the department’s version of what the lifeguards told them, the boy presented with a pulse and vomiting, they determined he didn’t need CPR, propped him up, then gave him a moment of CPR anyway, with no mouthguards, despite the fact that they were available.
If one has been unconscious in the water, and is now conscious and vomiting, you don’t fucking prop them up, so the vomit can choke them. If they are conscious and vomiting, you don’t give them CPR, period, and you don’t let anyone else do it either, or the victim could be badly injured. Every CPR-certified person, including the two women who did give CPR, has had exposure to these things. Regardless of the actual state of the child, the lifeguards’ own version of events reveals that their level of training to deal with this situation was abysmal, when it should have been at the very least above average.
Every witness who was not an abysmally-trained lifeguard says the lifeguards were making excuses and not doing a damn thing.
So should I believe those people, the poorly trained and irresponsible lifeguards, or the people responsible for the piss-poor level of training of the lifeguards?
Even a minimal level of common sense tells you who is probably closer to the truth here.
While I agree with you about the actions, or lack thereof, of the lifeguards, I don’t agree with this. A lot of changes are due to technology that wasn’t available 50 years ago, CPR masks included. And this is particularly true in medicine. We learn to use the newest stuff, and we forget how to do it without. Or the younger ones NEVER learn the “old ways”, they don’t even conceive that it’s possible. Today’s surgeons wouldn’t dream of doing operations with the technology of 50 years ago. Now – would they refuse to do such a procedure because they know there is a vastly increased chance of killing their patient, or because the would get their asses sued off if their patient dies, or because they wouldn’t even recognize most of the old equipment? Any given doctor might have a different answer.
Aside from all that however, I still agree that these lifeguards failed in their duties, which include being prepared to take action to save a life. It’s arguable that, lackng protective gear, they had a right not to do mtm, to protect themselves. IMHO it is NOT arguable that it was also their duty to have such gear availble. And the gear WAS there – there does seem to be agreement among the news stories that at least one mask was produced somewhere along the activities.
By the way, here are a couple of other links with interesting tidbits.
From The Patriot Ledger:
Here’s a Boston Globe quote from the guy who pulled the child out of the water that is at least minimally supportive of the lifeguards:
Every single time you deal with a patient you risk your life in one way or another. Sometimes it’s a big risk, sometimes it’s a little one. Everyone should have a threshold where they’re allowed to say “I’m not happy doing this”, and that should be the end of it.
I had a 70-something year-old patient hold a knife to a nurse’s throat last night, but no-one flung themselves at him and tried to wrestle the knife from his hand, even though that’s what gut instinct tells you to do.
The reason why we didn’t do that?
and
Sometimes the obvious, dangerous solution isn’t the only option, sometimes it’s not even the best option.
Everyone has to be able to walk away from situations they personally feel to be unacceptably dangerous.
This study may give some more information on the success of CPR performed on children and adults.
scotandrsn, I still don’t really believe you.
I can EASILY see how this situation explained here could be mis-interpreted by bystanders (and the rumor/telephone effect) into the extreme situation that we are contemplating now and here.
???
I was trained and trained and trained to ignore “gut instinct” in this situation (which in my gut is to flee, not to assault the patient). Nor was I trained to assault the patient. I was trained to work as a member of a team to talk with the patient. I don’t get to say, Oh well, I don’t feel comfortable talking to the patient, so let’s pile on. Similarly, in a situation where I’m on a team whose leader asssesses that a takedown has to happen, I don;t get to say, Oh, I don’t feel comfortable doing this. In an emergency, I have to do what I’ve agreed to do.
These lifeguards agreed to safeguard the people in the pond. The time for debate about comfort is not during a medical emergency. The lifeguards’ or facility’s failure to have standard safety equipment available compromised users’ safety. That’s poor training and poor decision-making. If the equipment was available and the staff properly trained, then triage that balances staff safety and client safety is appropriate.
From Boyo Jim’s first link:
We’ve got two versions of events here. The eyewintesses’ version, which, along with Grahn’s pronouncement, suggests the lifeguards didn’t know jackshit about how to handle an unconscious child in distress, or the lifeguards’ own version of events as reported by the DCR, which suggests they didn’t know jackshit about how to deal with a conscious child in distress. Either way, I do not feel remotely compelled to trust the DCR when they declare sight unseen that everything would have gone just perfectly if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids…er, bystanders.
Another thing that is bothering me about the story is this woman who punched a cop in the face. I’m only speculating, but my guess is that she too was upset that the lifeguards and the police and the 911 force were all apparently slacking, lazy, non-caring, jerks. What what she trying to accomplish?
I don’t care to follow up one this debate much more, but keep posting those news links, I want to hear what the witnesses still have to say.
I don’t think I’ll say anything about the situation in question specifically until there is more reliable information, but to the general comments about policies about first responders taking action or not…
Sam Stone, Diogenes its quite true that precautions can be too cautious, even stupidly so. But oftentimes they are actually sensible, even if you can’t see that right away as a burly manly men.
Not letting family members who are doctors administer medical care on their loved ones is something bourne out of the experience that they often fuck things up or take disasterously stupid risks that, when they don’t work out, put even more people in danger. Again, all policies can have judgement calls about how to apply them in a given situation, and it’s certainly possible for people to make really bad calls by being too literalistic. For instance, there’s every pro-life person that’s ever lived. But I digress.
But it’s just not the case that they are all part of some irrational buerrecratic conspiracy to make your dick flaccid. Some are pretty sensible. Some are what you say. But I don’t trust people like you to know the difference in the slightest, because you’ll both say whatever bullshit best fits your respective philosophical vendettas.
Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning?
Actually, that’s -exactly- what it says. No fire warden should put themselves in danger just to see if everyone’s out.
Your job is primarily to make sure that nobody’s dicking around thinking it’s a drill, so that they don’t accidentally die of stupidity. Your job may also be - depending on circumstance/need - to try to help people make their way to the exit. Or put out a little spot fire with an extinguisher. The one thing you don’t do is put yourself at risk because of a misplaced sense of heroism.
It’s *not *your job to do risky things - if it comes to getting up close and personal with danger and going traipsing around through flaming corridors, then you get the hell out of there and let the firemen do their business; it’s out of your hands. If there are any co-workers stuck in a dangerous place that can’t get out, then you sure as hell can’t get IN there to them, then out again, without being any better equipped than they are: a plastic hard hat doesn’t substitute for proper PPE.
Actually, I can see Sam Stone’s point of view.
Being a fire warden would carry at least a slightly greater risk than just being another employee heading for the exit. Being the last one out of a floor (or an entire building) will only increase your chance of injury. Ever hear any fire survivors say “gee we decided just to hang around before we left. Those ones who exited early really got the worst of it.”
Let’s suppose for some reason you trip, lose your way, pass out, etc. The person that is looking out for you is … anybody ?
Well, sure, you want to be *reasonable *about it. 
I read his post as meaning ‘significant risk’ but I suppose it could have meant ‘trivial risk’ in which case I didn’t contribute anything to the fighting of ignorance and must now slink away in shame.
BWP slinks off
BWP pokes her head back in to say ‘but I still don’t think that remotely compares to voluntarily ingesting someone else’s bodily fluids, which is not only ickier, but also considerably more likely to have nasty ramifications - the worst of which could be fatal disease and the least of which is very likely to be a mouthful of somebody else’s vomit. I’d rather patrol the smoky corridors and take my chances with tripping on the carpet than take the mouthful of chunder’.
BWP, realising this is still subjective and not actively Fighting For The Cause, slinks off again
A shepherd’s crook appears from offstage, hooks the errant asterisk and deftly removes it.
BWP
Shucks, I didn’t mean to get you all upset (especially now that I know you’re female).
I was hoping that my reply was not too angry. I can see your point about being a fire warden is a slight risk compared to performing CPR on a stranger which could lead to a:
Glad I wasn’t eating when I read that posting. 
It’s funny that in the BBQ Pit, I’ve seen more civil behavior than in some of the other forums.
Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I think that it is appalling that the lifegaurd refused to give CPR to the drowning victim! :mad: I’d sooner accidentally get a disease, but the victim survive rather than feeling guilty for the rest of my life that the victim died!
Yeah, but how would you feel if the kid had a really bad disease? Like maybe a zombie apocolapse type of disease? I wouldn’t give CPR to a zombie, but it’s clear you would…
However, FWIW, I agree with you.
Is there any record of anyone ever contracting any disease from CPR?
After a bit of googling, it appears to be possible but very rare.