Taken from this Pit thread. There’s a debate here, methinks.
In summation, some lifeguards reportedly refused CPR on a 3-year old drowning victim becuase they did not have mouth guards. Subsequent reports dispute this story, but there are some specific issues worth civilized debate. Link 1, Link 2 to the story in question.
Let’s see a citation.
I’d like to see:
“Documented cases” where some nasty bug was transmitted via “unprotected CPR.”
versus
Cases involving “unprotected CPR” where no nasty bug was transmitted.
Then we can start some realistic risk-assessment. My guess is that the risk is vanishingly small…
Is the risk of getting HIV from “unprotected CPR” on a 3-year old greater than say, saving a drowing person? I suspect the risk of drowning yourself when saving a drowning person is much greater; recovering a panicked person in the water is no simple business. Should the lifeguard conclude it’s optional whether to jump into the water when someone is thrashing around in distress?
Sure, if you’re a bystander, you have to come up with your own ethical sense of what risks are worth taking to save someone.
But a lifeguard, with professional training? Such a person assumes that risk implicitly. If they’re not ok with that, they shouldn’t be a lifeguard, in my opinion.
Assumed risk or not, it would still leave the life-guards employers open to a lawsuit if they insisted on CPR and the lifeguard were to catch a disease.
An employer (at least in the UK) has a duty of care to employees, and that includes not exposing them to avoidable risk in the course of the work.
Don’t blame the lifeguards, blame a litigious compensation culture.
Why is that particular risk implicitly assumed when one becomes a lifeguard, and not others?
Certainly, there are all sorts of degrees of risk that could be faced by a lifeguard. I’d say that what you believe is implicit is merely that, your belief, and a person in that lifeguard position, or another outsider, might have different ideas about what risks one is obligated to take by assuming the position of lifeguard.
There’s obviously a lot of judgement involved, and probably a lot has to do with the terms of employment agreed upon between the lifeguard and whomever hired him or her.
If it has been explicitly stated that the lifeguard should perform CPR only with the appropriate protection, then I don’t think that person would be making a morally wrong choice to not perform CPR out of concern for his or her safety. Though I’d wonder why the lifeguard didn’t have protection. If the employer doesn’t provide it, nor requires the lifeguard to buy it, then the problem is that the employer hired a lifeguard to perform duties not including CPR. If the lifeguard didn’t bring protection that day, then it is the lifeguard’s responsibility and is thus in the wrong.
Conversely, if it has been explicitly stated that the lifeguard should perform CPR whenever needed, and the need for proper protection is merely the lifeguard’s personal choice, then the lifeguard would be morally wrong to have accepted the job while not ensuring that he or she was able to save lives under the terms of employment (ie, if it’s a personal issue, then the lifeguard should either equip him or herself or get the employer to do so).
If it wasn’t explicitly stated one way or another, things are a little more murky. The lifeguard still is morally wrong, IMO, because there is a likely expectation for the lifeguard to perform CPR if/when necessary. The lifeguard, knowing this, should bring up the issue of safety with the employer if indeed it is an issue for him/her. Assuming the duties of lifeguard knowing that you will never perform CPR because you don’t have the proper equipment and not addressing that issue would be wrong. Though, I would also hope that the employer would have gone over expectations for the job, and thus given the lifeguard a clear picture of what was expected.
But surely the really dump thing about all this is whatever tiny risk there is of catching something really nasty from CPR, it is trivial compared to the risk of jumping into a deep body of water to rescue a flailing, drowning, swimmer. And presumably they can’t sue over THAT risk.
Except any individual makes the decision his or herself what risks he or she is willing to take, based on his or her own strengths, fears, knowledge, or whatever.
If a person is willing to comit an act with x% chance of danger involved, it does not follow that the person must also be willing to comit all other acts with equal or lesser chance of danger.
Also, if I’m more affraid of being struck by lightning than I am being killed in a car crash, I might be irrational, but I’m not necessarially stupid.