• 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

Her only concern was whether or not the correct policy was being followed.

If I ever have some kind of emergency, I hope that people don't follow policies that have been formulated by people who know what they're doing, and instead I hope that everybody just does whatever the **** they think is best

Stockboys, admin assts, computer programmers, just do whatever comes to mind!!

Don't worry about me resisting....I"m unconscious
 
If I ever have some kind of emergency, I hope that people don't follow policies that have been formulated by people who know what they're doing, and instead I hope that everybody just does whatever the **** they think is best

Stockboys, admin assts, computer programmers, just do whatever comes to mind!!

Don't worry about me resisting....I"m unconscious

Probably the best thing would be to quickly strip the ends of a lamp cord and do cardio-electric shock from the wall plug. But ideally, if the cord long enough, 220 volt from the dryer or an oven. That'd be the best whatever **** that comes to mind. They do electric shock to revive a person. So if you see someone is unconscious and breathing strangely, hit them with 220 half a dozen times and then start rapidly beating on the person's chest.

Afterall, that's better than doing nothing. :roll:
 
Family: CA woman denied CPR wanted no intervention - CBS News

Bayless' family said she was aware that Glenwood Gardens did not offer trained medical staff, yet 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," said the statement. "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."
 
You mind changing the oil while you're down there?

So this senior living community treats it employees as well as its residents. After all this nurse did for them, they've decided to put her on administrative leave after deciding days later that she misinterpreted company policy regarding CPR. Class act. The good news for her is that no criminal charges and likely no civil lawsuit. Perhaps she'll be able to get back to work after this all blows over. Though... If they start losing customers, who do you think will be among the first employees to be laid off?
 
And finally, the police are saying they are investigating and thus far have found nothing illegal in what happened. However, several commenters on these articles have noted it IS illegal for the 911 operators to dispense medical advice, and yet they get away with counselling CPR on a daily basis.

I went and interviewed a couple of actual EMT's about this story. First off they said that indeed it IS legal for 911 operators to dispense certain medical advice over the phone such as how and when to perform CPR. Obviously they cannot recommend drugs or any procedure that is not of an emergency nature and they have written guidelines as to what they are allowed to put out.

Agreed where in your case these are EMTs answering the phone. However, as you noted, that's not the case everywhere.

What are your thoughts on 911 personnel offerring to take legal culpability for the county? Because that's what this one did. She advised the caller that the county would take any legal heat.

As I understood it, they can't take on culpability per se', however, per federal law and many state laws know as Samaritan Laws, anyone who is not a licensed medical provider attempting to render aid in good faith can not be held legally liable. Conversely, anyone who is a licensed medical provider,e.g. EMT, RN, LNP, MD, etc, MUST stop and at least offer to render aid.

You don't perform CPR on someone who's breathing, even just a little. You give them oxygen. You sure as hell don't perform chest compressions on someone with a pulse.

Incorrect, again per actual the actual EMT's I interviewed. Irregular or infrequent breathing does indeed warrant the initiation of assisted breathing. Weak or improper heart beat warrants the initiation of chest compressions.

As a side note, they also described to me the machines they now carry on the ambulances that does the compression and "bagging" for them. It was rather fascinating, and they says it really frees them up for binding wounds, administering drugs, and other procedures, while also allowing them to operate with a smaller crew (they can operate with as few as 3 people when needed).

Well, maybe it's just me, but when I'm 86, and a similar event happens to me, I want that nurse to be there, and I want her to do the same thing- well except for the calling 911 part. I don't want to have my chest pounded on, and I don't want to live on a ventilator with brain damage until someone who loves me has the sense to let me go.

And that is why you get a DNR, because by law without that, all licensed medical providers are required to try to resuscitate you.

They're evidently feeling some heat along those lines - the community has since come out to clarify that she was not acting in the role of a nurse when she called, so she shouldn't be treated as if she were a nurse.

Again per the EMT's anyone who is a licensed medical provider is required by law to render aid at any time, even when they are off duty and even when not in their home state. If an RN has a second job as a grocery bagger and a person goes into a heart attack in the grocery store, unless there is someone there more qualified than she is, she must begin providing aid.
 
As a health care worker ya need to follow your facility's policy. If the nurse followed their policy and ya disagree with it, try to change the policy legally. :sun

Policy does not override law. Now if the woman who made the call was not a licensed medical provider (which can range from EMT to any nurse type to doctor and others) then fine policy was followed. But the law requires that a licensed medical provider perform resuscitation efforts unless a DNR is present. If indeed she was licensed she could very well lose it as well as be subject to legal action from the state or federal.
 
Policy does not override law. Now if the woman who made the call was not a licensed medical provider (which can range from EMT to any nurse type to doctor and others) then fine policy was followed. But the law requires that a licensed medical provider perform resuscitation efforts unless a DNR is present. If indeed she was licensed she could very well lose it as well as be subject to legal action from the state or federal.

Then wouldn't tha policy makers take responsibility?? If the policy contradicts the law then administration or policy-makers should be held accountable and not the nurse. How else does the nurse survive if policy clashes with law? The pt was 87 and had a DNR so there's more reason not to help. If the nurse violated policy she could get fired or maybe worse. In school you're always taught to follow facility policies and procedures. So many angry peeps don't even work in the health care world so they act on emotions.
 
Then wouldn't tha policy makers take responsibility?? If the policy contradicts the law then administration or policy-makers should be held accountable and not the nurse. How else does the nurse survive if policy clashes with law? The pt was 87 and had a DNR so there's more reason not to help. If the nurse violated policy she could get fired or maybe worse. In school you're always taught to follow facility policies and procedures. So many angry peeps don't even work in the health care world so they act on emotions.

Age is irrelevant. There is nothing in any law that states that licensed medical providers do not have to provide aid if the patient is a certain age or older. You need to show me a source other than posters that the woman had a DNR, because every news story I've run across states that she did NOT have a DNR. And I noted that a DNR legally overrides everything. That would be this part (Emphasis added):

But the law requires that a licensed medical provider perform resuscitation efforts unless a DNR is present.

I believed I also noted that if the caller to 911 was simply called "nurse" and was not indeed a licensed medical provider then the law does not cover her. The key point there is licensed. And no, according to the EMT's I interviewed, regardless of the policy a licensed medical provider is still liable if they fail to provide or offer aid without a DNR being present. The company may still fire the woman and certainly that is wrong, but depending on the state it may not be illegal. A lot depends upon how the facility is categorized by law and how it is funded. If it receives Medicaid/Medicare then they are required to have licensed medical staff on hand and perform resuscitive(sp?) services, again unless the DNR is present.
 
Well ya little peep there's some discrepancies that need ta be gone over a bit.

Age is a little imprtant when you're talking about CPR because of tha damage that can happen. In normal young peeps the practice can break bones in the sternum. Now if you're 87 just imagine tha level a damage and the complications. Yowch.

Tha problem with the issues of legality is that the law doesn't actually allow hands-on nursing ta be given to residents who aren't in skilled nursing facilities like nursing homes. Furthermore tha state and the federal Departments a' Health don't license or regulate independendent living or assisted living homes like tha Glenwood place. Ya can check Forbes's article too: Nurse Refuses To Give CPR, Senior Dies: Ethical Problem Or Legal Issue? - Forbes

It's like a issue between ethics and legality peep. And it's a good one.

What tha nurse did wasn't illegal but it served as a way to question an challenge the ethics of facility policy. Which is good. It's emotional and peeps have good reason ta talk about changing the rules.

If what the nurse did was obviously illegal she woulda been charged already.

Maybe the government should license and regulate private and independent non-nursing homes peep? :sun
 
Last edited:
Well ya little peep there's some discrepancies that need ta be gone over a bit.

Age is a little imprtant when you're talking about CPR because of tha damage that can happen. In normal young peeps the practice can break bones in the sternum. Now if you're 87 just imagine tha level a damage and the complications. Yowch.

There are various forms of CPR that are for various ages, from infancy to elderly.

Tha problem with the issues of legality is that the law doesn't actually allow hands-on nursing ta be given to residents who aren't in skilled nursing facilities like nursing homes. Furthermore tha state and the federal Departments a' Health don't license or regulate independendent living or assisted living homes like tha Glenwood place.

Emergency care such as CPR is not "hands-on nursing". It is emergency care no matter where it occurs; nursing home, independent living facility, the street, a private home, the local Y, etc.


Nice to see that the article you provided stated that there was NO DNR contrary to what you stated earlier. I do have to wonder about the author claiming to be both a nurse and an attorney. Will have to try to find time to look into that. I really like this paragraph though.

The press reports that there was no Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) direction in place. It’s a good thing for the facility’s owner Brookdale Senior Living that Ms. Bayliss’s family believed that she wanted “to die naturally and without any kind of life prolonging intervention” as they told the Associated Press. Brookdale’s policy about what the nurse should do in an emergency was sufficiently unclear that Brookdale’s public statement was to the effect that the nurse had “misinterpreted the company’s guidelines.” That sounds like “CYA” in case a family member later changes his or her mind and wants to blame Brookdale for not doing CPR
.

Not what they said at first.

http://www.krdo.com/news/Calif-woman-dies-after-nurse-refuses-to-perform-CPR/-/417220/19171238/-/149kd5r/-/index.html said:
The executive director of Glenwood Gardens, Jeffrey Toomer, defended the nurse's actions, saying she did indeed follow policy.

"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," Toomer said in a written statement. "That is the protocol we followed."

Then there is this line in the article you cited:

It’s not so bad to exit the way Lorraine did, fast, and probably without pain.

Really? When she was gasping for breath for around 7 minutes off and on and she was alive enough to later die at the hospital? Doesn't sound very fast or painless to me.

If what the nurse did was obviously illegal she woulda been charged already.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/nursing-home-cpr-case_n_2804575.html said:
A nurse's refusal to give CPR to a dying 87-year-old woman at a California independent living home despite desperate pleas from a 911 dispatcher has prompted outrage and spawned a criminal investigation.

So right there an investigation is underway. The "nurse" may not have yet been charged because the investigation is not complete. At least as of 10 days ago when the article was published, 4 days prior to the article you provided. Still looking for more info.

Maybe the government should license and regulate private and independent non-nursing homes peep? :sun

same article said:
She lived in the independent living building, which state officials said is like a senior apartment complex and doesn't operate under licensing oversight.

So the facility itself is not a licensed facility and probably doesn't offer up any medical care per se'. Something I noted as a possibility earlier. Irrelevant to my point. However, I can agree that there might be something to considering such for these facilities. But not everything that deals with the elderly should automatically require licensing and mandated medical care. Can you imagine the sudden drop in senior citizen sales in the retail market?

This goes to one of my other points:
State officials did not know Monday whether the woman who talked to the 911 dispatcher actually was a nurse, or just identified herself as one during the call.
If she is not a licensed nurse then there is no violation of law to worry about. In fact the law allows for people not to act, but only the general population. The licensed medical providers are still required to.

I did find this:
http://smmercury.com/2013/03/13/freethought-san-marcos-cpr-and-end-of-life-decisions/ said:
The elderly woman’s family said she was aware that the facility did not offer trained medical staff, yet opted to live there anyway:

That article is only 4 days old and seems to indicate that the "nurse" was nothing of the sort, at least as far a licensing goes. In which case she should be fine legally. However, that still does not change the fact of law requiring those who ARE licensed to perform aid regardless of place, location or anything outside of being physically unable to get there or a DNR.

I am attempting to get ahold of my EMT's again to get a more direct referencing to the laws that they told me about so that others will have a reference.
 
Back
Top Bottom