• 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

Taylor said:
That *is* the law in California. The 911 operator has legal immunity over giving advice, and "existing law expressly provides immunity from civil liability to any person who completes a designated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) course and who, in good faith, renders emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the scene of an emergency"
Click to expand...

That does not waive the responsibility of the business or property. How does that work in CA?
 
Northern Light said:
I don't understand why there is so much debate about this. The woman had a DNR. Had they disobeyed that and revived her, they probably would've been sued.
Click to expand...
She did not have a DNR, some news organizations had that wrong.
 
Black Manta said:
That does not waive the responsibility of the business or property. How does that work in CA?
Click to expand...
The way it works in California is that you can be sued if you're providing a paid service. If the nurse thought she was providing a paid service, she could have handed the phone over to someone who wasn't an employee, as the operator requested.
 
Taylor said:
The way it works in California is that you can be sued if you're providing a paid service. If the nurse thought she was providing a paid service, she could have handed the phone over to someone who wasn't an employee, as the operator requested.
Click to expand...

I think she did the right thing, call me paranoid. I know when I work at an account here, we are not allowed to render anything aside from basic are you OK? And call for paramedics. Reason being if someone is hurt on your property even though I am protected, the property is not.
 
joko104 said:
LOL. Self-appointed non-doctor Sangha turns to Wikipedia as his medical journal, after I cite the publication of real doctors specialized in care for the elderly. :lamo
Click to expand...

So far, you're the only person in the world saying that CPR should never be done on a person who is breathing, no matter how poor their breathing is
 
grip said:
Another reason some people won't give mouth to mouth without a respirator is because of possible infection. Not likely in an 87 yr old but HIV, Hep C and other deadly diseases can be passed through saliva.
Click to expand...

Actually it is very much myth that HIV, Hep C etc are not found in elderly.
 
joko104 said:
Actually it is very much myth that HIV, Hep C etc are not found in elderly.
Click to expand...
I was taught that 50+ was the highest STD risk demographic because they don't use condoms...because they can't get pregnant.
 
sangha said:
So far, you're the only person in the world saying that CPR should never be done on a person who is breathing, no matter how poor their breathing is
Click to expand...


I stand behind what I posted. Not knowing any other medical information, a person should not administer CPR to a person who is breathing not knowing why the person has difficulty breathing. People like you with Wikipedia wisdow rushing in to want to take total control other peoples lives into YOUR singular decision - something you express over and over again on every topic - is what constitutes a pro-actively very dangerous person due to what your messages suggest are very major control-freakism narcissm issues.

The FACTS bear out that what you would have done - CPR not knowing what the hell her medical issue was - would have been exactly wrong. That 87 year old woman did NOT die for lack of CPR at the scene. She died because she was dying.

It also is known that CPR was exactly NOT necessary as the woman died later at the hospital - which not only could do CPR but the entire array of medical expertise and equipment.

That 87 year old woman did not die for lack of CPR at the scene. She died because she was dying.
 
sangha said:
So far, you're the only person in the world saying that CPR should never be done on a person who is breathing, no matter how poor their breathing is
Click to expand...


I too was taught to never ever do cpr if there is even the slightest bit of breathing going on. That was years ago though.
 
joko104 said:
I stand behind what I posted. Not knowing any other medical information, a person should not administer CPR to a person who is breathing not knowing why the person has difficulty breathing.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said

You said that CPR should never be given to someone that was breathing.

But I can't blame you for dishonestly trying to run away from the absurd claim you made.

joko104 said:
You do NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing! Even if "barely" breathing.
Click to expand...



joko104 said:
You NEVER do CPR on someone who is breathing for MANY reasons.
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
You do NOT do CPR on someone who is breathing! Even if "barely" breathing.[/B] 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?!
Click to expand...

How outrageous. CPR isn't just for people who aren't breathing! The American Heart Association has clear guidelines which state that CPR CAN be administered to a person who is not breathing normally, i.e. a person who is "gasping." That facility is a disgrace and, as another poster noted, she should have her license suspended at the very least. Her callous inaction is extraordinarily unethical and negligent. If she just wanted to be a babysitter then she should have thought of that before becoming a licensed nurse!
 
The absence of breathing is the main indicator of cardiac arrest in a non-hospital setting. Respiratory arrest is very rare unless it follows cardiac arrest. It follows that if someone is breathing, their heart is more likely than not to be beating, and CPR is not only not needed but positively harmful. You NEVER practice on a living person for this reason.



Vinnie gets it wrong at the end, it's very hard. Try pushing down on a football, compressing it 2" every time at 100 beats per minute for five minutes non-stop. If the ambulance doesn't arrive by then with oxygen, they're dead already. If it does arrive then you and they will have given the person a 30% chance of recovery.
 
Medusa said:
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 .
Click to expand...

The woman chose, paid, to be at a no-CPR facility and her family is satisfied with the actions of the staff. I think it's sad and cannot imagine how to stand there and not try, but it is what it is and no one suffered injustice.
 
Napoleon said:
How outrageous. CPR isn't just for people who aren't breathing! The American Heart Association has clear guidelines which state that CPR CAN be administered to a person who is not breathing normally, i.e. a person who is "gasping." That facility is a disgrace and, as another poster noted, she should have her license suspended at the very least. Her callous inaction is extraordinarily unethical and negligent. If she just wanted to be a babysitter then she should have thought of that before becoming a licensed nurse!
Click to expand...


I already posted the distinction between what the Heart Associate says is general advice and what doctors who specialize in the elderly said on the subject.

The only thing that would risked her license is if she had done CPR despite her training and job instruction not to. Her "authority" stemmed from the overseeing doctor for the facility and over her - not a telephone operator answering a 911 call.
 
joko104 said:
I already posted the distinction between what the Heart Associate says is general advice and what doctors who specialize in the elderly said on the subject.

The only thing that would risked her license is if she had done CPR despite her training and job instruction not to. Her "authority" stemmed from the overseeing doctor for the facility and over her - not a telephone operator answering a 911 call.
Click to expand...

The doctor or job do not have authority over her when it comes to life saving CPR. The law has authority over everyone, and anyone trained in CPR may give it to an unconscious person in arrest under Good Samaritan laws.
 
ecofarm said:
The woman chose, paid, to be at a no-CPR facility and her family is satisfied with the actions of the staff. I think it's sad and cannot imagine how to stand there and not try, but it is what it is and no one suffered injustice.
Click to expand...


Trying to help people when you don't know if doing so will hurt or help the person - gets a lot of people hurt. Since she was breathing with difficulty, to just start heaving on her chest in defiance of your training and specific instruction - because some non-medical person on the other end of the phone says so - to just "do something" is exactly NOT what to do.

She did exactly what she was supposed to do. She called 911. Rather than wasting time by pretending to be medical personnel, the 911 operator should have instead instantly had an ambulance rolling. Every second the 911 operator argued with the nurse was a second EMTs with full equipment and in communication - if need be - with an actual doctor - was delayed.

People seem desperate to find fault in that nurse because she didn't go into a "do anything! Just anything!" mode and kept her head about her. Instead, someone likely with ZERO medical training was arguing with her rather than just getting the EMTs on the way.
 
joko104 said:
Trying to help people when you don't know if doing so will hurt or help the person - gets a lot of people hurt. Since she was breathing with difficulty, to just start heaving on her chest in defiance of your training and specific instruction - because some non-medical person on the other end of the phone says so - to just "do something" is exactly NOT what to do.

She did exactly what she was supposed to do. She called 911. Rather than wasting time by pretending to be medical personnel, the 911 operator should have instead instantly had an ambulance rolling. Every second the 911 operator argued with the nurse was a second EMTs with full equipment and in communication - if need be - with an actual doctor - was delayed.

People seem desperate to find fault in that nurse because she didn't go into a "do anything! Just anything!" mode and kept her head about her. Instead, someone likely with ZERO medical training was arguing with her rather than just getting the EMTs on the way.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you're ever going to admit you were wrong for saying that CPR should never be performed on someone who is breathing
 
Just out of curiosity...why would it be assumed the 'correct' medical procedure be CPR on a patient that has a pulse and is (albeit 'barely') breathing?
 
joko104 said:
Trying to help people when you don't know if doing so will hurt or help the person - gets a lot of people hurt.
Click to expand...

This argument is moot. She chose, paid, to be at a no-CPR facility.
 
Taylor said:
She did not have a DNR, some news organizations had that wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying.

In that case, it seems that no one wanted to do CPR on someone old and frail who might end up seriously injured, due to liabilities. Sad, but that's what the state of health care has become. Dollars over lives.

Our country needs serious tort reform.

digsbe said:
The doctor or job do not have authority over her when it comes to life saving CPR. The law has authority over everyone, and anyone trained in CPR may give it to an unconscious person in arrest under Good Samaritan laws.
Click to expand...

Good samaritan laws prevent you from criminal charges if you accidentally kill someone in the process of trying to save them. They do not protect you from lawsuits. I don't agree with it but that's another story.
 
joko104 said:
The only thing that would risked her license is if she had done CPR despite her training and job instruction not to. Her "authority" stemmed from the overseeing doctor for the facility and over her - not a telephone operator answering a 911 call.
Click to expand...

Her authority stems from the medical ethics and requirements in the field of nursing regardless of what her superiors say she should or should not do. "The doctor told me to (not) do it" is not an excuse that will get you very far when your license is under review.
 
Here is another example of someone - and non-medical - ignoring 911 demanding a medical accident. A woman in the 9th month of pregnancy went into a "frank breech" spontaneous birth. That means upside down and backwards - what used to be thought of as an impossible natural birth for a lay person. The husband got his wife on her hands and knees, called 911 with the address and to get an ambulance out.

His wife begging him to save their baby even at her risk. He had "read the books." Rather than getting an ambulance rolling, the 911 operator - and then even a nurse - told him over and over - after he had freed up the other leg "to slowly but carefully while pulling firmly twist out the baby" .... to save the mother. He said he just dropped the phone on the floor because he knew what they were saying and what it mean. Kill the baby - that'd break it's neck - to save the mother.

Instead, he carefully managed out one arm, then the other, and then slipped the baby's jaw out - the baby cold and lifeless. To not tell the mother the baby was dead, he did CPS and mouth to mouth for over a quarter hour - hoping the ambulance would arrive. The ambulance went to the right address - but in the wrong neighboring suburban city.

When the ambulance finally did arrive about 45 minutes after the call, the mother was nursing her living baby who did revive, with the mother not so much as torn and the baby just fine. A midwife and her trainee aid also had arrive after this, but before the ambulance and EMT. They told the EMTs "thanks for coming, but we're all just fine" and wouldn't even go to the hospital with the licensed midwife and an aid now there.

That was some years ago. Since then, they have learned that at birth babies can go well beyond the 4 minute mark in trauma - almost like going into hybernation. And that frank breech births can be continued naturally if no instant C-section possible - and that there is almost always the extra time allowed due to the nature of new babies to go longer than 4 minutes in trauma at birth without brain damage.

And, if he had twisted out the baby killing her and then he and his wife learned this a few years later, they would then forever have to live with having needlessly killed that new baby just because someone else said to - though in their hearts had felt that was wrong at the time.

ULTIMATELY, it is not what 911 says, not what nurses say and even doctors say. It is what YOU decide because YOU bear the consequences.

That the nurse didn't get all hysterical, emotional or try to prove herself up to the 911 operator doesn't mean there is anything bad about her at all. She called 911 so an ambulance would come. Instead, the 911 operator decided to argue with her - a licensed nurse which the 911 operator isn't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom