• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif. woman dies after nurse refuses to perform CPR

There used to be good samaritan laws. If you had been trained and if you acted based on that training, you where safe from civil suits as I understood the laws. Not sure of the current status, or even if those where federal or state laws.

I believe they still apply. During my CPR training they told us if a person goes unconscious and CPR is required you can give it without any consent and be covered under Good Samaritan laws if the patient decides to sue you for something afterwards.
 
The woman was 86 and had a DNR (Do not resucessitate).

Where do you get that she had a DNR? I see speculation that she might have, but at least one source (a local NBC affiliate) says she didn't.

The 87-year-old woman died. Reports identify her at Lorraine Bayless and confirm she did not have a do-not-resuscitate order. Her daughter told 17News she is satisfied with Glenwood's handling of the situation.

The reason CPR wasn't given is because it's the general policy of the facility to do nothing until medical help arrives. That's what all the stories on it say.

Jeffrey Toomer, executive director at Glenwood, told Channel 17's Kelsey Thomas the actions were consistent with company policy: Staff does not attempt CPR in the independent living facility.

Unlike the skilled nursing facility and assisted living facility, the independent section does not offer medical help, he said, and its clients know that.

He refused to speak specifically about Tuesday's incident, declining to explain why there apparently was a nurse present when Bayless collapsed.

He refused to provide a copy of Glenwood's policy.

He did provide a written statement. It said:

"First and foremost, we extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to this individual's family on the passing of their loved one.

"We also appreciate the assistance of emergency personnel who arrived immediately to assist in rendering first aid.

"In the event of a health emergency at this independent living community, our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives.

"That is the protocol we followed.

"As with any incident involving a resident, we will conduct a thorough internal review of this matter, but we have no further comments at this time."

Toomer told 17 News that is the policy of Glenwood Gardens that staff does not attempt CPR. Toomer said residents are made aware of this policy when they move into the building.
 
Last edited:
She was 87 and apparently did *not* have a DNR (contrary to some reports).

"Bayless's daughter, a nurse herself, confirmed that her mother did not have a do-not-resuscitate order, but said she was satisfied with the way Glenwood handled the situation"

Dramatic 911 tape reveals dispatcher
Nurse refuses to give CPR: 'Not at this time,' woman dies - San Diego Top News | Examiner.com

That same article says;




"But no one did, until the fire department arrived. Bayless died at Mercy Southwest Hospital. "

Since the woman died at the hospital, she didn't even need CPR. So the 911 operator could have just been giving incompetent and even life threatening advice/demands.

Not everyone who collapses needs CPR. Sometimes people with best intentions actually HURT someone by trying to help them.

A fella we know has a horrific scar on his leg when in a motorcycle accident people rushed over holding him down thinking he might have a back injury and shouldn't move - as he screamed! What he was screaming was "GET AWAY FROM ME!" because the hot tailpipe was on his leg. The ONLY injury he suffered was massive 3rd degree burns to his leg because of those do-gooders.
 
The call was made likely because the nurse also is required to do so by her employer.


I just don't know enough about the situation to make any kind of real judgment. Naturally, we all want to fight for life as long as possible or feasible but the dispassion and poor decisions being shown by others sometimes is frightening, to save or let go.
 
Since the woman died at the hospital, she didn't even need CPR. So the 911 operator could have just been giving incompetent and even life threatening advice/demands.

Not everyone who collapses needs CPR.
Don't know how you reached the conclusion "she didn't even need CPR" - first responders performed CPR on her when they arrived. As the other article states, "If the nurse would have provided CPR to 87-year-old Lorraine Bayless, Lorraine might have had some broken ribs but she would most likely still be alive."
 
some people have no heart

Since the article states she died later at the hospital, she didn't need CPR and doing so on an 86 year old woman who didn't need it could have been lethal on it's own. Pounding and pressing on the chest of someone that old can break ribs pressing them into lungs and heart.

This appears an opportunity for the media to create some OMG RAGE! crap before knowing the facts - and sadly too many people go along with it.

Here is what appears the real story.
1. An 86 year old woman collapsed.
2. Per policy, a staffer promptly called 911
3. A 911 telephone receptionist - with NO medical license - decided to play doctor and tried to get the staffer to be her nurse, for which the nurse refused.
4. The woman was transported to the hospital, still alive, meaning CPR was fully not necessary and would have been harmful or lethal.

IF those are the facts, then ABC and those raging along with that for-profit corporation (that makes money by making attention getters) are 100% wrong factually (and therefore also otherwise.)
 
4. The woman was transported to the hospital, still alive, meaning CPR was fully not necessary and would have been harmful or lethal.
What the $#&*(@ are you talking about? Is it your position that CPR should only be performed on dead people?
 
It even has this in the article - that people now rage about:

At the beginning of the Feb. 26 call, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the woman who had collapsed and was barely breathing, according to a transcript of the call.


You do NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing! Even if "barely" breathing. At the most, you give that person oxygen and maybe a blood thinner - not start pounding and pumping on the person's chest!!! And get the person to the hospital ASAP.

Don't you people know that?!

In REAL terms, the 911 operator was telling that nurse: "KILL HER! KILL HER! AND IF YOU WON'T, FIND ANYONE WHO WILL! KILLING HER IS THE ONLY DECENT THING TO DO!!!"
 
Last edited:
The only reason this is in the news is to give the public a baseline of fear that a lack of medical care will kill innocent people and therefore WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!

Lots of elderly die every day. Lots of elderly could have been saved but have DNRs in place. This literally happens all the time. The only difference here is that this incident had a good 911 call for us to hear.

Calm down people, there's nothing to see here, move along.

that woman's age is not an excuse to ignore this news . and it is the duty of media to make people aware what kind of problems the others have been experiencing in that society



social justice is for everyone , not everybody has the same opportunities as the others in this life.not everybody can buy health insurance .
 
-- 2. Per policy, a staffer promptly called 911
3. A 911 telephone receptionist - with NO medical license - decided to play doctor and tried to get the staffer to be her nurse, for which the nurse refused.

Bakersfield Fire Battalion Chief Anthony Galagaza said Halvorson followed protocol and that dispatchers give CPR instructions over the phone numerous times each year. LATimes Blog

Sad story, I agree CPR on an 86 year old could break ribs but it equally can do on a baby that needs CPR. Ribs can be treated, death cannot.
 
The possible lack of alarm by the nurse is because people who work in old age homes come accustomed to seeing old folks have medical crisis and pass away too. Experienced paramedics also come to act and make decisions without emotional drama.
 
It even has this in the article - that people now rage about:

At the beginning of the Feb. 26 call, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the woman who had collapsed and was barely breathing, according to a transcript of the call.


You do NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing! Even if "barely" breathing. At the most, you give that person oxygen and maybe a blood thinner - not start pounding and pumping on the person's chest!!! And get the person to the hospital ASAP.

Don't you people know that?!

In REAL terms, the 911 operator was telling that nurse: "KILL HER! KILL HER! AND IF YOU WON'T, FIND ANYONE WHO WILL! KILLING HER IS THE ONLY DECENT THING TO DO!!!"

Without the CPR she was going to die. That much is clear, and proven at this point. CPR may have saved her, or it may have been pointless. We do know that it would not have resulted in more death. If you are in a position to save a life, even if it's a small chance, you should do it. I am not saying she should be legally required, or even have her license suspended if she doesnt. But as a human being, if you have an opportunity to save a life you should do it. As a nurse who is trained at the very least in CPR and you just watch someone die because you are scared of losing your job or a lawsuit then you are just a ****ty person. If as an employer you put your companies profits above human life you are a ****ty person.
 
that woman's age is not an excuse to ignore this news . and it is the duty of media to make people aware what kind of problems the others have been experiencing in that society



social justice is for everyone , not everybody has the same opportunities as the others in this life.not everybody can buy health insurance .

When a person learns facts, they should adjust their reasoning.

The story says the woman was still breathing. That she died later in the hospital. Accordingly, CPR would NOT have helped in any way and only poised potential to harm or kill the woman. You NEVER do CPR on someone who is breathing for MANY reasons.

For example, difficulty breathing could be the result of some obstruction (such as food) restricting breathing. Blowing into a person's mouth is exactly what NOT to do as it pushes the obstruction deeper and can cause total blockage - and DEATH. A person "barely breathing" is NO indication of ANY heart problem whatsoever! Doing CPR on someone having difficulty breathing would make less sense than putting a bandage on the person's leg - other than putting a bandage on the person's leg wouldn't harm the person.

The media got it wrong, as did the 911 operator. NEVER, EVER, EVER do CPR (chest or mouth-to-mouth) on someone "barely breathing." That can ONLY do harm or cause death.

As Jerry stated, there is no story here. Move on.

Nice little lecture you have about "social justice" anyway.:)
 
Last edited:
CPR in the field is indicated ONLY if the patient has stopped breathing. A 911 operator should not be dispensing or suggesting medical treatment. Had the staffer started CPR as per the operator's instructions and the patient had died then because of it, the operator should be on the hook for negligence.
 
Without the CPR she was going to die. That much is clear, and proven at this point. CPR may have saved her, or it may have been pointless. We do know that it would not have resulted in more death. If you are in a position to save a life, even if it's a small chance, you should do it. I am not saying she should be legally required, or even have her license suspended if she doesnt. But as a human being, if you have an opportunity to save a life you should do it. As a nurse who is trained at the very least in CPR and you just watch someone die because you are scared of losing your job or a lawsuit then you are just a ****ty person. If as an employer you put your companies profits above human life you are a ****ty person.

CPR could not have possibly saved her. The woman was breathing. No indication whatsoever her heart had stopped.

The nurse was exactly correct and the 911 operator 100% wrong.
 
CPR in the field is indicated ONLY if the patient has stopped breathing. A 911 operator should not be dispensing or suggesting medical treatment. Had the staffer started CPR as per the operator's instructions and the patient had died then because of it, the operator should be on the hook for negligence.
Naw, the 911 operator was wrong, but it is well understood that 911 operators have to be best-guess know-alls. That's just reality. It is then UP TO YOU do decide to follow the best-guess-advice or not. You, then, are responsible for your decision and can't blame it on the 911 operator - even if doing what the 911 operator said.
 
Naw, the 911 operator was wrong, but it is well understood that 911 operators have to be best-guess know-alls. That's just reality. It is then UP TO YOU do decide to follow the best-guess-advice or not. You, then, are responsible for your decision and can't blame it on the 911 operator - even if doing what the 911 operator said.

I disagree. They should not be dispensing medical advice or counselling medical treatment. They are NOT medical professionals in any sense of the word. They should take the call and roll the appropriate response agency. If it's an immediate medical need, the operator should put them on the line with a qualified medical professional.
 
CPR in the field is indicated ONLY if the patient has stopped breathing.
Not true at all. The American Heart Association recommends that compressions start immediately on anyone who is not responding and not breathing normally - i.e. the same state this woman was in.
 
I disagree. They should not be dispensing medical advice or counselling medical treatment. They are NOT medical professionals in any sense of the word. They should take the call and roll the appropriate response agency. If it's an immediate medical need, the operator should put them on the line with a qualified medical professional.

I started out by immediately defending the nurse, but also will defend the 911 operator. Because of reality. There is no qualified medical professional in the room where 911 operators answer. IF it is a no-breathing and no-heartbeat situation, the person is DEAD before the 911 operator could get and convey competent medical advice.

911 operators get ever imaginable situation of every possible kind. IF it APPEARS immediate life-death, the 911 operator - whether as an employee or as a fellow human - has to do the best she/he can. Sometimes they get it wrong. But at least someone is trying to be level headed with some rudimentary knowledge that is a little bit about almost everything and expertise at nothing.

Finally, a person is generally NOT liable for advice they give to someone else. If you told me some situation and I replied, "hell, you ought to go punch that SOB in the nose!" and you do, I am not a co-conspirator in you being guilty of assault.

There is a misconception of what 911 is. They are message takers and info conveyors - and nothing else legally. What they say has no legal weight either way whatsoever - other than MAYBE to show good intentions of the person if following 911 advice. BUT, ultimately, the decision to follow that advice or not always comes down to the individual.

If 911 operators were liable for advice, then all a 911 operator could say is "let me get your number and I'll get a message to everyone so everyone can decide who should do something - if anything - and maybe someone will come or call you back - or maybe not" - and hang up. If the person asked "what should I do?" all the 911 operator could say is "sorry, I can't give advice to anyone."
 
I don't want to take sides as I think we do not know all the facts. I heard that her family is OK with what happened. The woman may have a "do not resuscitate" order. In that case the nurse could have been sued for disobeying a lawful order. Older people are very frail, and the possibility of breaking her ribs is very high.

Great point.

Not only that we don't know what health issues she had: high blood pressure, kidney or liver disease, respiratory illness, cancer, dementia?

As soon as the family said they are satisfied with the care, this story should be over. But because of some overzealous 911 operator the country gets to be 'outraged' at something.

Also, several versions of the story refer to "her nurse" meaning she had her own nurse part-time or 24/7. Which means she was probably waiting for a bed to open up in the alzheimer's wing.
 
Not true at all. The American Heart Association recommends that compressions start immediately on anyone who is not responding and not breathing normally - i.e. the same state this woman was in.

Let's have a link to that info, because it's 100% wrong and would lead to premature death and likely injury. If they are breathing and you force CPR, you can kill them.
 
Although I've had a change of heart on this issue based on information I have received from a few doctors and nurses I'm associated with and now believe that the nurse actually did the right thing I still have serious concerns about this kind of issue.

My grandmother is 96 years old and has dementia. In early December of last year she was beginning to become belligerent which is very much unlike her. The doctors put her on some kind of mood altering drug. When that didn't seem to be working they upped the dosage. Another doctor figured that she'd had a stroke and that was what was causing the behavior change so they put her on another med for that and soon upped that dosage as well. The week before Christmas she was like a damned zombie. When you looked into her eyes there was nothing there and she was exhibiting signs of being in a lot of pain. One of the caregivers at the assisted living facility she was in suggested that perhaps she had a UTI but getting a doctor to coordinate with the staff and all was getting ridiculous so we took her to the ER where we explained the situation and had them test for a UTI. She did have a serious infection and we were asked what we wanted done.

We opted to have the infection treated and see how things went. We also had them take her off of all the medications except the antibiotics. It was a rather "interesting" couple of days but by day 3 she was coming around and doing fine. Today she is just as much off her rocker as she was before but once again she is happy and wandering around as usual. I mention this because if the decision was left completely to the medical professionals she would have been left to die....needlessly.

In the case of the woman in CA it seems that there was a significant likelihood that CPR would have damaged ribs, punctured lungs, etc. My understanding from the pros is that it was more likely than not that even if her life were saved at the time that she would have been on her way out anyway and in substantial pain along the way. I can understand that. I don't like it but I can understand it. I would just like to say, however, that the definition of "extraordinary means" to save ones life seems to be getting less and less "extraordinary" over time and that the DNR is easily used as an excuse to simply do nothing and if you have a loved one in some kind of managed care I would HIGHLY recommend that you make it a point to be as clear as possible about what you do and do not want done in a given situation.
 
911 operators do not and cannot give commands. They are not police officers. They are telephone answerers.
 
I started out by immediately defending the nurse, but also will defend the 911 operator. Because of reality. There is no qualified medical professional in the room where 911 operators answer. IF it is a no-breathing and no-heartbeat situation, the person is DEAD before the 911 operator could get and convey competent medical advice.

911 operators get ever imaginable situation of every possible kind. IF it APPEARS immediate life-death, the 911 operator - whether as an employee or as a fellow human - has to do the best she/he can. Sometimes they get it wrong. But at least someone is trying to be level headed with some rudimentary knowledge that is a little bit about almost everything and expertise at nothing.

Finally, a person is generally NOT liable for advice they give to someone else. If you told me some situation and I replied, "hell, you ought to go punch that SOB in the nose!" and you do, I am not a co-conspirator in you being guilty of assault.

There is a misconception of what 911 is. They are message takers and info conveyors - and nothing else legally. What they say has no legal weight either way whatsoever - other than MAYBE to show good intentions of the person if following 911 advice. BUT, ultimately, the decision to follow that advice or not always comes down to the individual.

If 911 operators were liable for advice, then all a 911 operator could say is "let me get your number and I'll get a message to everyone so everyone can decide who should do something - if anything - and maybe someone will come or call you back - or maybe not" - and hang up. If the person asked "what should I do?" all the 911 operator could say is "sorry, I can't give advice to anyone."

The operator can put the person calling on the line with the same EMTs that are responding to the call - I've seen it done many times. The ONLY job of the 911 operator is to contact the appropriate agency for response, gather info and relay immediately to the responding agency and to keep the caller calm while response is on the way. Medical advice or any kind is outside their purview. Might as well ask some random dude rubbernecking at the scene for medical advice
 
Back
Top Bottom