• 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

If living in a senior community puts you at greater risk of not receiving medical assistance, that's a huge problem. Makes you wonder why the people in that community are shelling out what are no doubt exhorbitant costs to live there. Will be interesting to see if they decide to do anything after the criminal investigation concludes.

What criminal investigation? What law was broken? No one is required to provide medical assistance unless they are in a hospital.

(Thanks for the info above...if the woman had no DNR order in place, the organization should be put out of business.)
 
If living in a senior community puts you at greater risk of not receiving medical assistance, that's a huge problem. Makes you wonder why the people in that community are shelling out what are no doubt exhorbitant costs to live there. Will be interesting to see if they decide to do anything after the criminal investigation concludes.

It puts you at no more risk than anyplace else. If they need assistance and it is not an assisted living facility they hire their own nurses etc.

Please stop assuming. Two different types of facility's and living armaments.
 
It puts you at no more risk than anyplace else. If they need assistance and it is not an assisted living facility they hire there own nurses etc.

Please stop assuming.
Clearly it does if they're not going to do anything to help a woman lying on the ground with no pulse. She would have received better care at a shopping mall.
 
What criminal investigation? What law was broken? No one is required to provide medical assistance unless they are in a hospital.

(Thanks for the info above...if the woman had no DNR order in place, the organization should be put out of business.)

From the AP:

"Police in Bakersfield are investigating whether there was any criminal wrongdoing in an independent living facility's handling of a resident's death after a nurse refused to perform CPR on the woman."

"Beard said the department is looking into the incident. She said she can't provide any additional information because the investigation is ongoing."
 
Clearly it does if they're not going to do anything to help a woman lying on the ground with no pulse. She would have received better care at a shopping mall.

Why because the mall is closer to a fire station or hospital? Maybe if people weren't sue happy it would not have to be this way.
 
From the AP:

"Police in Bakersfield are investigating whether there was any criminal wrongdoing in an independent living facility's handling of a resident's death after a nurse refused to perform CPR on the woman."

"Beard said the department is looking into the incident. She said she can't provide any additional information because the investigation is ongoing."

It's not a given. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely any charges will be pressed. But civilly? That's another story.
 
Clearly it does if they're not going to do anything to help a woman lying on the ground with no pulse. She would have received better care at a shopping mall.

I lost track of where the real info is, the reporting has been atrocious on this. Is it now being reported she had no pulse?
 
Why because the mall is closer to a fire station or hospital? Maybe if people weren't sue happy it would not have to be this way.
Because someone would have likely provided the CPR she needed.
 
My guess is that the "nurse," may get her license yanked for not helping out regardless of company policy. Then she will turn around and sue the 'company," because their policy cost her her license. They will estimate, in court, her projected life earnings and award her that amount.

She let's the lady die and then goes on permanent vacation, paid in full, smelling like a rose.

America. Gotta love it.
 
It's not a given. In fact, I think it's highly unlikely any charges will be pressed. But civilly? That's another story.
Oh, definitely not a given that any actual charges will come of it - just an investigation at this point.
 
This Catch-22 is a result of our ridiculous legal system. First, the facility was not licensed to provide medical care. Secondly, had the staff performed CPR and failed to revive the lady? They could/would likely be sued. Third, if staff performed CPR, revived the lady and caused injury? They could/would likely be sued. Fourth, as in this particular case, if CPR isn't performed at all? They could/would likely be sued. This is a complete no-win scenerio. And a lady died.

And just in case anyone is wondering? Good Samaritan Laws are challenged in civil court all the time. In some cases, defendants have been found liable in the face of those laws. Whether such person wins or loses, the cost to an individual to simply respond and defend one's self can be astronomical.

Don't want this **** to happen? Change the court system.
 
My guess is that the "nurse," may get her license yanked for not helping out regardless of company policy. Then she will turn around and sue the 'company," because their policy cost her her license. They will estimate, in court, her projected life earnings and award her that amount.
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.
 
Has anyone with the authority to know, other than the 911 operator playing doctor and the idiot press, actually determined that CPR would have done one lick of good in this case?
 
I lost track of where the real info is, the reporting has been atrocious on this. Is it now being reported she had no pulse?
They're saying that the fire department's incident report states that when emergency personnel arrived the woman was not breathing and did not have a pulse.
 
Has anyone with the authority to know, other than the 911 operator playing doctor and the idiot press, actually determined that CPR would have done one lick of good in this case?
We've determined that it would have caused a lot more harm than good. Links were given. Basically, chest compressions on an 87 y/o would have broken several ribs and caused internal bleeding. The mortality rate for CPR on the elderly sits around 95%.
 
If living in a senior community puts you at greater risk of not receiving medical assistance, that's a huge problem. Makes you wonder why the people in that community are shelling out what are no doubt exhorbitant costs to live there. Will be interesting to see if they decide to do anything after the criminal investigation concludes.

Oh yes, she would have been better off if she had been home alone. :doh

The facility was an assisted living center offering housing, cleaning and meals, plus someone present - including to call 911.

The message above is another person who wants something for nothing. You do not get 24/7 medical care for $80 a day. BUT, I guess the opinion above is that if that woman doesn't have $20,000 a month then the moral thing to do is dump her on the street.
 
This Catch-22 is a result of our ridiculous legal system. First, the facility was not licensed to provide medical care. Secondly, had the staff performed CPR and failed to revive the lady? They could/would likely be sued. Third, if staff performed CPR, revived the lady and caused injury? They could/would likely be sued. Fourth, as in this particular case, if CPR isn't performed at all? They could/would likely be sued. This is a complete no-win scenerio. And a lady died.

And just in case anyone is wondering? Good Samaritan Laws are challenged in civil court all the time. In some cases, defendants have been found liable in the face of those laws. Whether such person wins or loses, the cost to an individual to simply respond and defend one's self can be astronomical.

Don't want this **** to happen? Change the court system.

Oh! How to change the court system? Make Good Samaritan Laws just like Castle Laws. If one isn't found criminally guilty, no lawsuit can be filed. Period.
 
This Catch-22 is a result of our ridiculous legal system. First, the facility was not licensed to provide medical care. Secondly, had the staff performed CPR and failed to revive the lady? They could/would likely be sued. Third, if staff performed CPR, revived the lady and caused injury? They could/would likely be sued. Fourth, as in this particular case, if CPR isn't performed at all? They could/would likely be sued. This is a complete no-win scenerio. And a lady died.

And just in case anyone is wondering? Good Samaritan Laws are challenged in civil court all the time. In some cases, defendants have been found liable in the face of those laws. Whether such person wins or loses, the cost to an individual to simply respond and defend one's self can be astronomical.

Don't want this **** to happen? Change the court system.

I've often posted on the forum that for nearly any issue involving other people, law essentially requires total apathy and non-involvement. Generally, the only certain legal thing to do is absolutely nothing at all. If you see a baby carriage rolling towards a cliff, for which your moving your foot just 1 foot would likely stop it going over - you have no legal duty to do so and no legal liablity if you don't. BUT if you do, then you have exposed yourself to a lawsuit. That is how the legal system works.

There are about 1,200,000 lawyers in this country. 5 times that number in employment relevant to those lawyers, if not 10 times more. The President and VP are lawyers. Except some lowest level courts, all judges who decide what is law and how apply it are lawyer. They dominate Congress and virtually every legislature. They will collectively assure their job security.
 
Oh! How to change the court system? Make Good Samaritan Laws just like Castle Laws. If one isn't found criminally guilty, no lawsuit can be filed. Period.

Is that true though? I thought the opposite was true. Take OJ for example.
 
Is that true though? I thought the opposite was true. Take OJ for example.

She is proposing that, not saying that is how the law is.
 
They're saying that the fire department's incident report states that when emergency personnel arrived the woman was not breathing and did not have a pulse.

Thanks, I didn't catch that. It doesn't jive with the rest of the reports that say she didn't die until sometime later in the hospital.
 
Is that true though? I thought the opposite was true. Take OJ for example.

No, I wasn't clear. I was talking specifically about Good Samaritan Laws containing something prohibiting lawsuits unless one is found criminally liable.
 
We've determined that it would have caused a lot more harm than good...The mortality rate for CPR on the elderly sits around 95%.
What's the mortality rate for someone who isn't breathing and has no pulse?
 
Back
Top Bottom