|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Post your random news stories here
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-05-2013 09:59 AM
That retirement home no CPR story is a clear indicator the United States has way the hell too many attorneys.
I thought it was bad enough when diving boards were removed from both public and residential swimming pools over high insurance penalties of having them installed (ow, I hit my head being a clutzy dumbass, but it's somebody else's fault, I'm calling my lawyer).
Regarding this story, I smell something criminally negligent. I've heard lots of "devil's advocate" arguments defending the 911 caller's lack of action. "Maybe the old lady had a DNR (do not resuscitate order)," "CPR can break ribs when done properly," "very few CPR attempts result in saving a life." Yeah, whatever.
If the dying lady had a DNR why would the retirement home worker bother calling 911? Given the choice, if I suffered a heart attack, went into full arrest and needed CPR, I think I'd rather be alive with some cracked/broken ribs than be dead. As to the argument that only a small percentage of people are saved by CPR, the small chance is still a chance. If someone just stands there with his thumb up his ass after seeing a person go into cardiac arrest he'll still have that nagging thought in his head that he could have at least done something.
A couple weeks ago here in Lawton at our local Family YMCA a 71 year old guy running on a treadmill collapsed and started turning blue. A couple people there at least tried performing CPR on the guy. The crowd didn't just call 911 and then stand there like idiots until the EMT's arrived. They at least tried to do something. The old guy died at the hospital, but the bystanders at the gym at least have the clear consciences knowing they at least tried to help the guy. They did the morally right thing. It's irrelevant the guy still died or perhaps one of his ribs got cracked.
One other factor I haven't heard mentioned: the retirement home worker's refusal to perform CPR could have also been over disgust of doing such a procedure. No one wants to get in lip-lock with another person unless it's their significant other or someone they find very attractive. Otherwise it can be pretty gross. A lot of people who are revived with CPR may vomit as they start to breathe again. Yeah, the person you're trying to save may throw up in your mouth. Ewww. EMT's, real nurses, etc. are trained to take that in stride. Roll the patient on his side, make sure the airway is clear, check to see if he is stabilized.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-05-2013 12:13 PM
The problem here is duty to act.
You or I, the average citizen, have no duty to do anything. If I was walking down the street and witnessed a car accident, legally speaking, I could spit on the ground and walk away. On the other hand, a police officer, a fireman, an EMT and, in some jurisdictions, doctors and nurses are obliged to make a reasonable effort when they witness an emergency. They can get in trouble if they don't.
A nurse in a nursing home clearly has a duty to act. That's her job. That's what people pay her for. She is there to help residents who get sick or injured. Not doing so is neglect of their duty, possibly criminally negligent.
Aversion to mouth-to-mouth contact is not a reason to avoid giving CPR. Both the Red Cross and the American Heart Association now teach "Hands Only CPR" that uses only chest compressions. No breathing or mouth contact is needed. According to both organizations websites, Hands Only CPR is just as effective as traditional CPR.
Chances of success in reviving a heart attack victim using CPR are only 50% or less, depending on circumstances, but are even are only 25% without it. Basically, you double the person's chances by using CPR. The way I was taught, if you witness a person having a heart attack, there is a five minute window in which to act. If you give CPR in that time period, the chances are good. If you wait longer than that, chances fall off dramatically for every minute you wait. In ten minutes, the person is probably already dead, no matter what you do afterward.
If you witness a person pass out or if you arrive within a few minutes of a person passing out, take action. If you arrive later than that, be supportive, call an ambulance or do whatever is reasonable but giving CPR is a low priority.
Yes, CPR can and often does crack ribs, even when done correctly. They teach you that when you take a CPR class. As Bobby says, it is often better to have a cracked rib than to be dead. That is practically what they tell you, word for word, in all the CPR courses I have taken.
A nurse in a nursing home should have been trained how to do all this. In fact, I would guess that this is "Nursing 101." She (he) should know about the time frames involved. She should know about Hands-Only vs. traditional CPR. She should know enough about anatomy to give CPR without undue risk of cracking ribs and understand what to do or not to do if ribs are cracked.
If a nurse doesn't do what is necessary in the course of her job duties, she's basically throwing all her training and money she paid to get her degree out the window. She should not be a nurse and shouldn't work in the field again. I agree that a nurse who fails to act should be liable if a patient in her care dies.
There had be a damned good reason why she didn't give CPR. I'm talking something like the patient has typhoid. The only other reason would be if she found the patient clearly dead or mortally ill/wounded.
That nurse ought to be hung out to dry, as far as I am concerned.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-05-2013 02:08 PM
I can't speak to whether there is a moral duty to take action. Personally, I believe there is but it's all dependent on the situation and everybody has the right to decide whether they believe in a moral duty to act, as well. I don't think the question, here, is about moral duty, though.
The very reason why people elect to live (or elect to have their family members live) in nursing homes, assisted living facilities or retirement communities is because there are trained staff on duty, 24 hours per day, who know what to do if something bad happens.
The woman who was on staff, be she a nurse, a nurse's assistant, an orderly, a health care aid or even a cleaning lady had a duty to act. That's what she was being paid for.
Whether she was just a "bottom feeder" or if she was a fully trained nurse makes no difference. She could have called somebody to help in addition to just phoning 9-1-1. She did not call for additional help. She should be found to be in breach of duty.
If I was a family member of any person who was a resident at that home/apartment/community, I would be pulling my loved on out of that place, TODAY. In fact, I would expect there to be a mass exodus of clients from that home.
I understand the problems of having an aging population and taking care of all those senior citizens. You just can't do everything, all of the time. The problem in this case is that the victim's family paid somebody to take responsibility which wasn't upheld.
All hell is going to break loose at that facility. In this case, I think it should.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-06-2013 02:58 PM
New details, interesting turn of events and some corporate ass-covering:
quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Relatives of an 87-year-old woman who died after a nurse at her retirement home refused a 911 dispatcher's pleas to perform CPR expressed satisfaction with the care she received, saying her wishes were to die naturally. Meanwhile, the company that owns the facility now says its worker failed to follow proper procedures.
Lorraine Bayless' death last week at Glendale Gardens, a Bakersfield independent living facility, prompted outrage after a 7-minute recording of the 911 call was released. Brookdale Senior Living, which owns the facility, initially said its employee acted correctly by waiting until emergency personnel arrived. But late Tuesday, it issued a new statement saying the employee had misinterpreted the company's guidelines and was on voluntary leave while the case is investigated.
"This incident resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents," the Tennessee-based company said.
Shortly before Brookdale's clarification, Bayless' family sent The Associated Press a statement saying she was aware that Glenwood Gardens did not offer trained medical staff, but opted to live there anyway.
"It was our beloved mother and grandmother's wish to die naturally and without any kind of life prolonging intervention," the family said. "We understand that the 911 tape of this event has caused concern, but our family knows that mom had full knowledge of the limitations of Glenwood Gardens and is at peace."
The family said it would not sue or try to profit from the death, and called it "a lesson we can all learn from."
"We regret that this private and most personal time has been escalated by the media," the statement said.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-24-2013 05:37 AM
quote: Jim Cassedy
I love the TV stations' sophisticated "live' on-screen graphics system:
And the shot from the ceiling void that zooms down the toilet pan. They clearly had fun with that story.
quote: The Daily Telegraph
Heathrow runway closed and three injured after plane on fire makes emergency landing
At least three people have been injured after a plane had to make an emergency landing at Heathrow airport when smoke was seen coming from the back of the plane.
Eyewitnesses reported seeing flames and a trail of smoke from the back of the British Airways plane, which was carrying 75 passengers and travelling to Oslo.
Three people are being treated for minor injuries following the incident.
Both runways were closed following the incident, which happened on a British Airways airbus A319. The southern runway was re-opened first, and the northern runway has now been re-opened.
Smoke was seen coming from the right engine of the plane, and other planes are reported to have been diverted to Stansted airport.
It has been suggested that the cause of the fire was a bird strike.
Clive Cook was walking with his daughter and saw the plane crossing the Thames near Battersea Bridge. He told Sky News: "I looked up and saw the plane coming through the clouds and the right engine was on fire. It wasn't smoking, it was on fire.
"This plane was coming over and suddenly the tone of the engine changed dramatically. I can almost say it sounded like it was a blow-out or an explosion."
A spokeswoman from Heathrow Airport said all the crew and passengers had been safely evacuated from the plane.
The plane had to return to Heathrow shortly after take-off, after what a spokesperson for British Airways said was a "technical fault."
They said: "The aircraft landed safely and emergency slides were deployed and we are currently caring for our customers."
They said they could not confirm the cause of the incident and that the Air Accident Investigation Branch at British Airways would now be conducting a full investigation.
British Airways said two pilots and three crew members had been on board the flight, which took off from Heathrow at about 8.16am. More than 70 British Airways flights have been cancelled so far today.
All the pictures in the news reports show the left hand side of the plane, i.e. the engine that was not reported as being on fire, with a cowling ripped off the side of the engine and what looks like significant damage to the wing. From that I'd speculate that it was a double bird strike which disabled the left engine completely, leaving the crew with no choice but to leave the right one running, despite the fire, in order to get back to the runway. A very lucky escape for the passengers, crew and everyone living in the west London suburbs (the approach path to Heathrow) if so.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic