If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCBStv.com)   Witness: This woman collapsed, can you EMTs help? EMTs: Yeah... we would, but... we're kinda on our break. You should probably call 9-1-1. Witness: But you're... wait, where are you going?   (wcbstv.com) divider line 454
    More: Scary, EMT, Uniformed EMTS, slideshows, FDNY, paramedics, New York Post, Long Island College Hospital  
•       •       •

25330 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2009 at 7:02 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



454 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-22 09:15:05 AM
LessO2: These guys would have helped.

You beat me to it. Let me guess they would have given her D5W with lactated ringers?!!!
 
2009-12-22 09:16:21 AM
My guess is the next break that they get will be spent in the yard at prison.
 
2009-12-22 09:19:54 AM
Well, we know who the knee-jerk anti-union demagogues are. The article makes it pretty clear that the union is throwing these two assholes to the wolves.
 
2009-12-22 09:22:28 AM
Alacritous: Witness the spread of the "I got mine, fark you" syndrome.shiat, I've been watching that since the first time Obama mentioned "comprehensive health care reform".
 
2009-12-22 09:26:56 AM
After reading this thread and seeing idiots using it as an opportunity to bash Obama, Unions, and everything else that has absofarkinglutely nothing to do with this story, I hate you all.

Have a nice day, please die in a fire.
 
2009-12-22 09:31:50 AM
ScubaDude1960: FTA: "A spokesman for the EMT union..."

I think I see the problem.



How about displaying the whole quote? Oh, I know why. The complete quote doesn't jibe with your distorted world view.

A source within the union said, "If the charges are true, why should we go out on a limb to defend these two and hurt our own good reputation?"
 
2009-12-22 09:41:36 AM
Just came here to say that an off-duty EMT helped me once.
 
2009-12-22 09:58:46 AM
Dr. Nick Riviera: I would just like to point out that like 70% of the people in this thread watch way too much ER/Grey's Anatomy/Trauma and have no idea what being an EMT actually entails. Listen to squidzilla. He knows what he's talking about.

/former EMT/FF

/this

Additionally Mayor Bloomberg way overstepped the bounds of elected officials (which seems to be contagious lately). He can be outraged as much as he wants but until all the facts are in he can STFU.

When I was a paramedic I used to teach all sorts of stuff but when I taught CPR I would take a mannequin and throw it on the floor and make people wait 4 minutes just staring at it. I would then explain in our area an Ambulance takes an average of 8 minutes to arrive. You should have seen their faces. Then I explained why they might have to act. That aside whatever that person "remembered" is not likely what actually happened. I'll reserve judgement of the EMT's until the facts are in (and those above them are clear of the CYA period) but it just looks bad.

I'm pretty jaded and retired from my paramedic career a few years ago but I wouldn't be able to say hey call 911 without taking a pulse and seeing what's up. These two knew enough to at least get her basic info. (The responding crew would love if you handed them her demographics.) Leaving is a bad idea especially when it's someone who you knew works there. A homeless guy goes down and it's a completely different story. Like it or not that's the truth.

I have never met anyone who has ever been sued for stopping and rendering basic assistance to another person regardless of the state or profession. Basic care and Paramedic care aren't similar and you don't even want to get into the political nonsense of performing Paramedic care off duty.

Lastly I call complete and total B.S. on the "my friend did a tracheotomy in the mall and got sued for leaving a scar". IF the story was cricothyrotomy then the potential exists for performing it but the sheer Hollywood idea that it's quick and easy and works really well is crazy. Try this at your desk- breathe through a ball point pen for a period of time... yeah full of suck. Those airways require specialized ventilators to perform efficiently. Having seen them go wrong with trained people who have the right equipment I would say that trying that is pretty much guaranteed to get you sued and not for saving someone's life.
 
2009-12-22 09:59:59 AM
There is no excuse for their lack of action or compassion. They had a moral obligation to stay and help, even if that help was to do nothing but prevent do gooders from doing the wrong thing. They should suffer the consequences for their decision. Some of the most important things that one can do to save a live require no tools at all, and sometimes compassion in a situation like that speaks volumes to the family and bystanders.

/ can their sorrry a$$e$.
 
2009-12-22 10:02:08 AM
Because robbing someone of all their worldly possesions is really going to get them to a place where they can pay you the money they owe you. Wedding Dress and baby photos in a landfill, that's just cold. Even if it wasn't mistaken identity it would be cold. I hope she gets a million bucks from them.
 
2009-12-22 10:04:50 AM
Legal duty or not, ass chewing from your boss or not, on break or not, out of your district or not, these people had an ethical obligation to do more than say 'call 911.'

At the very least they, as dispatchers, should have been able to actually talk to patient in between the time of her first feeling ill and the beginning of the seizure. They could have actually called it in themselves, also, since with their training they should have been able to provide a calm, level-headed assessment of the situation to 911, as well as providing pertinent information to get people with equipment to the scene as fast as possible.

Now legally they might be in the clear, but there's a rather large difference between a legal duty and a moral one, and they utterly fail at the latter.
 
2009-12-22 10:06:07 AM
megalynn44: Because robbing someone of all their worldly possesions is really going to get them to a place where they can pay you the money they owe you. Wedding Dress and baby photos in a landfill, that's just cold. Even if it wasn't mistaken identity it would be cold. I hope she gets a million bucks from them.

wrong thread. My bad.
 
2009-12-22 10:10:10 AM
When I was an FF/EMT our chief laid down his Duty to Act policy: "You are employed by this city, so whenever you are in this city you have a duty to act. Outside of city limits it's between you and your conscience." I always thought that a sound policy, so I think the dispatchers should have stayed. Crap, they KNEW how to call it in.

In a situation like that, anyone can help. Anyone can:

-- keep the sick / injured person still
-- cover them up with something to keep them warm and dry
-- call 911
-- talk to them and try to keep them calm and relaxed as possible
-- apply direct pressure to any bleeding
-- start CPR if they aren't breathing, or try to find someone that knows CPR if you don't.

Common sense and compassion can go a long way. As a society we've become sadly lacking in both.

Also - don't think that because someone is wearing a Fire Dept shirt they are a fireman. They sell FD t-shirts everywhere. I remember resonding to a call and was told there was a paramedic already on scene. The 'paramedic' was a local retarded guy that was a fan of the fire dept and wearing a FD shirt he bought and carrying his portable scanner. He was wondering why everyone was yelling at him...
 
2009-12-22 10:12:20 AM
Wow, now that I did read the relevant article, damn people are cold. Not just the EMT's either. My favorite quote from the entire article was

A source within the union said, "If the charges are true, why should we go out on a limb to defend these two and hurt our own good reputation?"

I don't think they understand the concept of a union. Workers with a total lack of humanity working for a union with a total lack of humanity.

/Merry Christmas!
//Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men!
 
2009-12-22 10:16:31 AM
djh0101010: thinks_on_feet: What a load of sophistry happy horse shiat.

The question is one of human compassion, not preparedness... because you can't always be prepared for everything that happens in your life... but you damn sure can at least try to keep a person alive.

Besides, the two EMT didn't claim they weren't trained.

They said they were on break.


That's what the claim is. And because you want to believe the worst about them, you choose to do that. If I were in that situation I would have maybe said it as "We're not on duty" or "We're not medics, we just run the radios" or something. They might even have said that, but, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

(shrug) hard to say. My point isn't that they shouldn't have helped, my points are this: (a) the article doesn't give enough information to really know what did happen, really, and (b) that, if they HAD acted, I have no doubt that some lawyer would be all over them for going above and beyond their abilities when she died, or if her kid was born with a disability, or whatever.

The article doesn't mention if they had an ambulance or kit with them; being dispatchers, I doubt that they did. There's only so much someone can do, even if they HAD been the most seasoned crew in the city.


You're the one reading into things, pal. I'm going by what the story reported, and the follow-up reports. I'm going by eye witness reports.

You're making shiat up in your own head. For example, they weren't newbs. They had field experience as EMT. So piss off.

You're extrapolating, based upon your own self-proclaimed expertise within the domain of "What an EMT would and should do in all circumstances."

Pull your head out, and maybe some day you'll save someone's life.
 
2009-12-22 10:22:07 AM
skylabdown

"This story FAILS for not providing enough information. The author wants the juicy headline, yet fails to deliver enough facts for a discerning reader to reach a reasoned opinion.

I hate the insta-news that passes for journalism today.

I have know idea what happened in this situation so I am not going to start pontificating either way.

Sloppy journalism."


Yeah, I concur. It may well be that the story is true. But there might also be more to the story.
 
2009-12-22 10:25:32 AM
Axias: Please, Union or not, these are just two dickheads. They better PRAY their names aren't released.

ummmm......
 
2009-12-22 10:26:17 AM
lajimi: thinks_on_feet: lajimi: Eutisha Rennix and her baby were buried on Friday. The family is considering legal action against the two EMTs.

Good luck with that. You're going to end up with a large legal bill and the chances are you won't win a cent. These guys are scumbags that should be horsewhipped but are under NO legal duty to act.


Wrong. They are classified as "first responders," based on their training. The way to prove that is to look at their retirement classification in the NYFD. They are.

They can, therefore, be sued, civilly, for nonfeasance. For not doing that which they were capable of doing and chose not to do.

Perhaps New York law is different. Here, as long as you don't start treatment you have no obligation whatsoever. For example, I have driven past car accidents if police are already on the scene since they tend to be liability traps and I don't have the necessary supplies in my personal car to handle a trauma anyhow. If someone were to collapse in front of me I would never walk away until additional trained personnel arrive.


It's not about "good samaritan" laws -- these were experienced EMT with at least 4 years of experience in one case (I forget off-hand what the other's experience was) -- and they were ON DUTY, even if "on break," which, according to Federal labor laws is the same as being on duty.
 
2009-12-22 10:31:18 AM
About 8 years ago I took an First aid class at work (in NY). We were told that the Good Samaritan laws would protect us in the event we made a mistake, or we didn't and the person died anyway. A former EMT asked about his own status, she said it depended on if his training was current. A trained person with a current liscense is NOT protected by Good Samaritan laws. They are supposed to know when to use their training OR when to wait for backup.
 
2009-12-22 10:38:45 AM
FTA
The family is considering legal action against the two EMTs.

Would *this* be considered legal? It should.
www.stanleytools.com
66.147.240.177

Time to go to town on those two...wait...what? The victim wasn't a pretty young white female? How did that make the news then?

The EMT, it wasn't this guy, was it?
www3.sympatico.ca

/hot like Ghost Rider's head.
 
2009-12-22 10:41:37 AM
zeldapin: Axias: Please, Union or not, these are just two dickheads. They better PRAY their names aren't released.

ummmm......


Fire Department of New York suspended Jason Green, a six-year veteran, and Melissa Jackson, a four-year veteran, without pay while the Dec. 9 incident is investigated, spokesman Steve Ritea said.

Jail. These two are going to jail.


/Also, the trolling in this thread was second-rate, but the biting was hilarious.
//Just, you know, FYI...
 
2009-12-22 10:56:38 AM
andrew131: Yeah, I smell bullshiat.

yeah, lady prolly died and lost her baby just to hit the lawsuit jackpot. Personal responsibility, people!
 
2009-12-22 10:56:41 AM
While I'm not saying I'm a fan of these two guys, I'm surprizingly not that pissed off at them. I've done more than my share of advanced first aid training. The number one thing they ram through our heads is that by far the most important thing to do is call 911. This also goes for off duty paramedics and doctors. Without your equipment even the most brilliant surgeon is pretty much useless in the field.

Also, if the patient is breathing on their own and not bleeding out then you basically can only sit on your thumbs and wait for the ambulance. It sounds like this woman already had people with her so they were not needed for that. Sure they could have assumed this role, but then they legally become responsible for her care until someone relieves them. And with that comes huge liability concerns in particular because of their training.

My question is, is there any evidence whatsoever that this woman would have had a higher chance of survival if the EMT (sans equipment) stayed behind? If yes, was there any indiciation that this was the case when the off-duty guys walked out the door? If either answer is no then this is really a non-issue.
 
2009-12-22 10:57:41 AM
On the 20th, NYFD placed the two EMT on paid but restricted duty, and... wait for it... barred from providing patient care.


It stands to reason that a large bureaucracy would CYA, but does that sound like something they would do to a couple of phone jockeys? Bar them from providing patient care?

These were EMT.

Oh, and just for the pain: The NYFD EMS dispatch center? It's located IN THE SAME BUILDING as the bakery/cafee... a couple floors up.

They would have been, if they are not fired and prosecuted, which they shall be, returning to work in the same building where they let a woman die.

Their actions weren't just unprofessional and callous.

Their actions were sub-human.
 
2009-12-22 11:16:07 AM
danae00: While I'm not saying I'm a fan of these two guys, I'm surprizingly not that pissed off at them. I've done more than my share of advanced first aid training. The number one thing they ram through our heads is that by far the most important thing to do is call 911. This also goes for off duty paramedics and doctors. Without your equipment even the most brilliant surgeon is pretty much useless in the field.

Also, if the patient is breathing on their own and not bleeding out then you basically can only sit on your thumbs and wait for the ambulance. It sounds like this woman already had people with her so they were not needed for that. Sure they could have assumed this role, but then they legally become responsible for her care until someone relieves them. And with that comes huge liability concerns in particular because of their training.

My question is, is there any evidence whatsoever that this woman would have had a higher chance of survival if the EMT (sans equipment) stayed behind? If yes, was there any indiciation that this was the case when the off-duty guys walked out the door? If either answer is no then this is really a non-issue.


The city attorney is prepared to demonstrate just how irrelevant your answer happens to be -- because in the State of New York, first responders are REQUIRED to render aid and they're immune from liability should something happen other-than success (in most cases).

It's called New York State Public Health Law, Article 30. Look it up.

They're legally obligated to act, and if the patient dies, it's not their fault -- the exception being, when "gross negligence" can be determined.

I believe two trained EMT walking away from a woman in a situation that required a 911 call (by their own recommendation)?

That's gross negligence.
 
2009-12-22 11:16:53 AM
pharmacycanad.com


RIP PROPECIA
 
2009-12-22 11:17:35 AM
FarkLordOfTheSith: By virtue of having an EMT certificate, they were legally obligated (in most states, if not all) to render aid. Failure to act constitutes negligence, and the EMTs involved could lose their certifications - at a minimum.

/former EMT


No. That varies from state to state. In many places, they are not only NOT required to help, but starting to do so may have held them to standards they could not meet (due to working as a dispatcher, not EMT and having no equipment), with no insurance, and additional legal obligations which would make it a huge risk to stay. Some companies here will require their EMTs NOT stay at a scene unless they are on duty or personally involved.
 
2009-12-22 11:24:06 AM
ErinPac: FarkLordOfTheSith: By virtue of having an EMT certificate, they were legally obligated (in most states, if not all) to render aid. Failure to act constitutes negligence, and the EMTs involved could lose their certifications - at a minimum.

/former EMT

No. That varies from state to state. In many places, they are not only NOT required to help, but starting to do so may have held them to standards they could not meet (due to working as a dispatcher, not EMT and having no equipment), with no insurance, and additional legal obligations which would make it a huge risk to stay. Some companies here will require their EMTs NOT stay at a scene unless they are on duty or personally involved.


You're completely mistaken. Hilariously so, in fact.

We're not talking about private providers, we're talking about government "first responders."

These were employees of the NYFD, not some third-party bambalance crew.

The majority of States REQUIRE first responders to act, due to a federal Department of Transportation law (I can't recall the name off the top of my head, go look it up yourself) that provides millions in funding to those states who have X number of first responders who are required to act.

You're just plain dead wrong. Almost completely.

So here's a suggestion: STFU.
 
2009-12-22 11:32:32 AM
FDNY
FDNY
FDNY
FDNY


/Not NYFD.
 
2009-12-22 11:34:07 AM
thinks_on_feet:
The city attorney is prepared to demonstrate just how irrelevant your answer happens to be -- because in the State of New York, first responders are REQUIRED to render aid and they're immune from liability should something happen other-than success (in most cases).

It's called New York State Public Health Law, Article 30. Look it up.

They're legally obligated to act, and if the patient dies, it's not their fault -- the exception being, when "gross negligence" can be determined.

I believe two trained EMT walking away from a woman in a situation that required a 911 call (by their own recommendation)?

That's gross negligence.

And again, my question is this: Treat her how? She is not in an unsafe environment, she is breathing (therefore her heart is working), she is not bleeding. They do not have any equipment with them. Once 911 has been called, what more could they have done except sit with the rest of the crowd and wait?

There isn't enough information in the story to convince me that these guys did anything wrong. How is it gross neglience to do nothing when quite possibly the best possible care they could have given was to... do nothing?

Being a paramedic or doctor does not give you the ability to miraculously save people on the side of the road with your brain alone.
 
2009-12-22 11:42:21 AM
danae00: And again, my question is this: Treat her how? She is not in an unsafe environment, she is breathing (therefore her heart is working), she is not bleeding. They do not have any equipment with them. Once 911 has been called, what more could they have done except sit with the rest of the crowd and wait?

There isn't enough information in the story to convince me that these guys did anything wrong. How is it gross neglience to do nothing when quite possibly the best possible care they could have given was to... do nothing?

Being a paramedic or doctor does not give you the ability to miraculously save people on the side of the road with your brain alone.



You're stupid and you cannot fathom a reason for training and certifying someone as an EMT, and also you've never heard of either "the law" or "human compassion."

Got it.

Thanks for playing.
 
2009-12-22 11:47:46 AM
danae00: Being a paramedic or doctor does not give you the ability to miraculously save people on the side of the road with your brain alone.

True, but with a ball point pen and a paper clip, it's a completely different story

img8.imageshack.us
 
2009-12-22 11:48:13 AM
thinks_on_feet: ErinPac: FarkLordOfTheSith: By virtue of having an EMT certificate, they were legally obligated (in most states, if not all) to render aid. Failure to act constitutes negligence, and the EMTs involved could lose their certifications - at a minimum.

/former EMT

No. That varies from state to state. In many places, they are not only NOT required to help, but starting to do so may have held them to standards they could not meet (due to working as a dispatcher, not EMT and having no equipment), with no insurance, and additional legal obligations which would make it a huge risk to stay. Some companies here will require their EMTs NOT stay at a scene unless they are on duty or personally involved.

You're completely mistaken. Hilariously so, in fact.

We're not talking about private providers, we're talking about government "first responders."

These were employees of the NYFD, not some third-party bambalance crew.

The majority of States REQUIRE first responders to act, due to a federal Department of Transportation law (I can't recall the name off the top of my head, go look it up yourself) that provides millions in funding to those states who have X number of first responders who are required to act.

You're just plain dead wrong. Almost completely.

So here's a suggestion: STFU.


Against litigious people... it just doesn't matter. The lady and her baby would have still died... if you cant save them after a couple hours in the hospital, it's not like having an EMT dispatcher wave a magic wand in the first few minutes is gonna be the difference-maker. The harsh reality is that a family lost a prospective mother, then just minutes later, her baby... and now they're looking for someone to blame. If the dispatchers had rendered care, the woman probably would still have died hours later, and the family would be suing them for not having met a reasonable standard of care, as they lacked proper equipment and hadn't been active practicing emergency medicine, aside from the phone part, in years.

/as a side note, they would not be protected from the lower standard of care lawsuit by good samaritan laws *because* they are licensed EMTs, in the event that they acted while unequipped, they are liable, as they are supposed to know when to wait for proper equipment and higher levels of care providers to arrive.
 
2009-12-22 12:04:24 PM
Instead of saying, "New York law could be different," you could just Google it or something and find out.
 
2009-12-22 12:07:59 PM
firefly212: Against litigious people... it just doesn't matter. The lady and her baby would have still died... if you cant save them after a couple hours in the hospital, it's not like having an EMT dispatcher wave a magic wand in the first few minutes is gonna be the difference-maker. The harsh reality is that a family lost a prospective mother, then just minutes later, her baby... and now they're looking for someone to blame. If the dispatchers had rendered care, the woman probably would still have died hours later, and the family would be suing them for not having met a reasonable standard of care, as they lacked proper equipment and hadn't been active practicing emergency medicine, aside from the phone part, in years.

/as a side note, they would not be protected from the lower standard of care lawsuit by good samaritan laws *because* they are licensed EMTs, in the event that they acted while unequipped, they are liable, as they are supposed to know when to wait for proper equipment and higher levels of care providers to arrive.



Nice troll... you're completely mistaken. They were EMT.

Try to stay within the real, and not your imagined, context.

NYS doesn't have a "lower standard of care" provision. EMT, barring gross negligence, are immune from liability in NYS in all cases where they are otherwise legally obligated to respond, as happens to be true in this case.

They're going to be fired. They're going to be prosecuted. They're going to jail.

/get over it.
 
2009-12-22 12:27:05 PM
I went to a grocery store to buy some beer. The sign said they close at 9pm. I was there at 8:55, so I tried the door. It was locked. I made eye contact with the guy at the register, and he shrugged his shoulders in the it's-out-of-my-hands sort of way. It seems like it is becoming more and more rare for businesses to stay open when they are getting business. It just shows how removed owners are from their stores and how little employees care for their jobs.

Anyway, I bring this up because it appears this mentality is now spreading to EMTs. And, why shouldn't it? As the gap between the haves and have-nots increases, people are going to take less and less pride in their work.
 
2009-12-22 12:44:44 PM
thinks_on_feet:
You're stupid and you cannot fathom a reason for training and certifying someone as an EMT, and also you've never heard of either "the law" or "human compassion."

Got it.

Thanks for playing.


Your logic is like no earth logic I have ever seen.

I cannot fathom a reason for training and certifying someone as an EMT? Huh? I think EMTs are brilliant lifesavers and do not receive even close to the respect that they deserve. Some of the stories I've heard from EMTs I know... how they don't have nightmares every night I will never know.

I don't understand law or human compassion? I admit I'm not overly familiar with NY law, but it seems this is hardly a clear-cut case given that they two "EMTs" in question haven't worked on patients in years and are now strictly dispatchers. I also have yet to see any evidence that they could have done anything to help her given they had no medical equipment available.

And compassion? I have far too much compassion for my own good. But my compassion extends beyond the poor woman and infant who lost their lives. It also extends to the EMTs who are now being vilified in the press for possibly doing the best thing they could in the circumstances: ensuring that someone called 911 so that those who actually could help would arrive ASAP.

But hey, don't let that stop you from judging others.
 
2009-12-22 01:04:28 PM
thinks_on_feet: You're completely mistaken. Hilariously so, in fact.

We're not talking about private providers, we're talking about government "first responders."

These were employees of the NYFD, not some third-party bambalance crew.

The majority of States REQUIRE first responders to act, due to a federal Department of Transportation law (I can't recall the name off the top of my head, go look it up yourself) that provides millions in funding to those states who have X number of first responders who are required to act.

You're just plain dead wrong. Almost completely.

So here's a suggestion: STFU.


I have looked it up. Interestingly, the EMT-I coursebook I have suggests you *not* respond off duty.
Here's a more plain language explanation:
http://theemtspot.com/2009/06/23/what-is-the-duty-to-act/
The NHTSA curriculum you refer to even says that the duty to act normally only applies when on duty and working under legal compensation - and that other circumstances may vary by state.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/pub/frnsc.pdf
and for NY specifically:
"Certified persons have NO authority or responsibility to respond independently. In NY there is no duty to act as an individual 1
citizen, regardless of certification or licensure. Individuals may respond only as a part of an authorized agency's response system and
within an EMS system."
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/pdf/98-05.pdf
 
2009-12-22 01:18:14 PM
danae00: Your logic is like no earth logic I have ever seen.

I cannot fathom a reason for training and certifying someone as an EMT? Huh? I think EMTs are brilliant lifesavers and do not receive even close to the respect that they deserve. Some of the stories I've heard from EMTs I know... how they don't have nightmares every night I will never know.


But you don't seem to mind if they decide to NOT do their jobs and someone dies, potentially as a direct result. Got it.

I don't understand law or human compassion? I admit I'm not overly familiar with NY law, but it seems this is hardly a clear-cut case given that they two "EMTs" in question haven't worked on patients in years and are now strictly dispatchers. I also have yet to see any evidence that they could have done anything to help her given they had no medical equipment available.

You have no evidence they haven't worked on patients in years -- for all you know, these two were assigned dispatch duty on a rotational basis so they'll be aware of all facets of the EMS approach.

It stands to reason the FDNY wouldn't have barred them from providing medical care to patients after this event, if they weren't already considered to be in a job where they were supposed to be providing medical care to patients.

And compassion? I have far too much compassion for my own good. But my compassion extends beyond the poor woman and infant who lost their lives. It also extends to the EMTs who are now being vilified in the press for possibly doing the best thing they could in the circumstances: ensuring that someone called 911 so that those who actually could help would arrive ASAP.

But hey, don't let that stop you from judging others.


I won't. Stupid doesn't need a lot of proof.

RTFA & STFU.
 
2009-12-22 01:27:59 PM
thinks_on_feet: You have no evidence they haven't worked on patients in years -- for all you know, these two were assigned dispatch duty on a rotational basis so they'll be aware of all facets of the EMS approach.

"These are people that are not in the field," EMS union exec Jeff Samerson said. "They have not had patient contact in years."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_probes_emts_in_mom_death_RwtNLkvp9Qb3Tt2eJ lKJfK#ixzz0aRYnBgIN
 
2009-12-22 01:32:45 PM
Actually from this other article...

FDNY investigators have obtained a videotape from the Au Bon Pain on the day of the incident, department sources said.

Employees said they approached Green and Jackson for help for Rennix.

Shop worker Tareen Brown, 29, said the EMTs initially told workers that "if they reacted, they could get in trouble. They said they weren't allowed to touch her unless a call was made to 911 first."

His co-worker, Lourdes Colon, 19, said, "They said they couldn't do anything. They said they were trainees. They showed no sympathy at all."

Brown said that after Jackson and Green did not go to help Rennix, he went outside where there was a group of about 10 FDNY employees, and told them, "Somebody has fallen out. There's an emergency."

"They said, 'What do you want us to do? Call 911.' "

Jackson actually did call 911 from the Au Bon Pain, according to the union's Samerson.

But sources said Jackson told the dispatcher that Rennix had difficulty breathing -- despite the fact that the EMT never physically examined the stricken woman -- and left before the LICH crew arrived. Based on the information Jackson provided, the call was initially not treated as a critical emergency.


If they do get in trouble it will likely be for the 'help' they DID provide - the information to the dispatcher - which turned out to be of questionable quality, rather than the leaving - 10 other employees didn't help either, apparently, and they didn't say they were on break.
 
2009-12-22 01:35:00 PM
thinks_on_feet:
But you don't seem to mind if they decide to NOT do their jobs and someone dies, potentially as a direct result. Got it.


Nice trolling, as I said no such thing. I have said there is no evidence that they had any role in her death.


You have no evidence they haven't worked on patients in years -- for all you know, these two were assigned dispatch duty on a rotational basis so they'll be aware of all facets of the EMS approach.


Jeff Samerson, a representative from the EMT and paramedics union said that the EMTs followed protocol.

Jackson] called 911. She didn't have an ambulance. She didn't have equipment. She does not work in the field as an active EMT in an ambulance," he said. "She is a dispatcher. She works as an emergency medical dispatcher. [Green] is also a dispatcher. These are people that are not in the field, that have not had patient contact in years. And they did the best they could."
From another article.


It stands to reason the FDNY wouldn't have barred them from providing medical care to patients after this event, if they weren't already considered to be in a job where they were supposed to be providing medical care to patients.

Right. Because it would be crazy for the FDNY to make such a ruling only for PR reasons.

I won't. Stupid doesn't need a lot of proof.

RTFA & STFU.


Heh. That made me giggle.
 
2009-12-22 01:36:50 PM
ErinPac: I have looked it up. Interestingly, the EMT-I coursebook I have suggests you *not* respond off duty.
Here's a more plain language explanation:
http://theemtspot.com/2009/06/23/what-is-the-duty-to-act/


Right. Because EMT-I coursebooks are for STUDENTS, not for licensed EMT. And it's not in the best interest of the department where you work to be a partially-trained EMT who responds to emergencies while off duty.

They call that guy a "wannabe."

These weren't wannabes. These were certified EMT.

Most police departments feel the same way about their trainees responding to crimes in progress while they're still at the academy.

It's not something they want to see happen.

But their trained cops? Yeah, they don't get to decide who to pursue and who to let go. They're on duty 24/7.

The NHTSA curriculum you refer to even says that the duty to act normally only applies when on duty and working under legal compensation - and that other circumstances may vary by state.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/pub/frnsc.pdf
and for NY specifically:
"Certified persons have NO authority or responsibility to respond independently. In NY there is no duty to act as an individual 1
citizen, regardless of certification or licensure. Individuals may respond only as a part of an authorized agency's response system and
within an EMS system."
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/pdf/98-05.pdf


In reverse order: The public health policy statement you cite in NYS doesn't even imply what you claim it says and does not have the force of law, genius.

The policy, from 1998, was changed after 9/11 -- but even the old policy (the one you cite) says, clearly:

"Pursuant to the provisions of Public Health Law, the individual having the highest level of prehospital certification and who is responding with authority, "has a duty to act" and therefore is responsible for providing and/or directing emergency medical care and the transportation of a patient. Such care and direction shall be in accordance with all NYS standards of training, applicable State and Regional protocols and may be provided under direct medical control."

In other words, in NYS, if you're trained and you're part of the recognized EMS system, you are REQUIRED to act. You do not have a right to not act.

These two were trained EMT working in the recognized EMS system, and they were ON DUTY. What part of that don't you get?

Failure to act is criminal negligence.

If you're going to step, do it correct. Otherwise, blow.

It would appear your PhD in Google Public Policy, and your Google Juris Doctorate have failed you, yet again.
 
2009-12-22 01:41:23 PM
thinks_on_feet: Right. Because EMT-I coursebooks are for STUDENTS, not for licensed EMT. And it's not in the best interest of the department where you work to be a partially-trained EMT who responds to emergencies while off duty.

They call that guy a "wannabe."

These weren't wannabes. These were certified EMT.


Okay, so the certification test makes you answer that you don't have a duty to act for giggles then? How about the local EMS services having you sign contracts that you WILL NOT act due to suits?
I wasn't talking about while you were a student. Also, the book is used to regularly re-educate working EMTs in their courses as well.

The quote that "WHO IS RESPONDING WITH AUTHORITY" part - it refers to the note saying that only those being compensated are responding with authority - nobody off duty is.

Apparently your PhD in English has failed you, yet again.
 
2009-12-22 01:42:08 PM
ErinPac: "These are people that are not in the field," EMS union exec Jeff Samerson said. "They have not had patient contact in years."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/da_probes_emts_in_mom_death_RwtNLkvp9Qb3Tt2eJ lKJfK#ixzz0aRYnBgIN


Oh, right... so the eye witness accounts? Those are all suspect.

But the union rep's obvious CYA opener? That's just because these certified EMT with 6 and 4 years of service each hadn't had patient contact "in years."

Ever heard the word "hyperbole" (he wondered, aloud)?

/let me guess, you watch a lot of Fox News?
 
2009-12-22 01:43:39 PM
Dammit... others beat me to it.

Regardless, I'm not saying that what they did was right. I'm saying there is no real evidence (as of yet) that what they did was illegal and/or had any impact in that woman's death. So they may have done nothing wrong. And I'm not going to scream for their heads until that evidence is available.

Regardless, it sounds like they could have used more tact in explaining why they weren't jumping in to save the day.
 
2009-12-22 01:47:26 PM
ErinPac: Okay, so the certification test makes you answer that you don't have a duty to act for giggles then? How about the local EMS services having you sign contracts that you WILL NOT act due to suits?
I wasn't talking about while you were a student. Also, the book is used to regularly re-educate working EMTs in their courses as well.

The quote that "WHO IS RESPONDING WITH AUTHORITY" part - it refers to the note saying that only those being compensated are responding with authority - nobody off duty is.

Apparently your PhD in English has failed you, yet again.


My gosh, you're stupid. I mean, what you just said is so stupid it's finally not worth rebutting because it makes zero sense and has no connectino to the actual State where the actual event took place and that State's actual laws as they actually exist with regard to actual EMT.

You are the winner of today's Most Stupid Farker prize.
 
2009-12-22 01:47:44 PM
danae00: thinks_on_feet:
But you don't seem to mind if they decide to NOT do their jobs and someone dies, potentially as a direct result. Got it.


Nice trolling, as I said no such thing. I have said there is no evidence that they had any role in her death.


You have no evidence they haven't worked on patients in years -- for all you know, these two were assigned dispatch duty on a rotational basis so they'll be aware of all facets of the EMS approach.


Jeff Samerson, a representative from the EMT and paramedics union said that the EMTs followed protocol.

Jackson] called 911. She didn't have an ambulance. She didn't have equipment. She does not work in the field as an active EMT in an ambulance," he said. "She is a dispatcher. She works as an emergency medical dispatcher. [Green] is also a dispatcher. These are people that are not in the field, that have not had patient contact in years. And they did the best they could."
From another article.


It stands to reason the FDNY wouldn't have barred them from providing medical care to patients after this event, if they weren't already considered to be in a job where they were supposed to be providing medical care to patients.

Right. Because it would be crazy for the FDNY to make such a ruling only for PR reasons.

I won't. Stupid doesn't need a lot of proof.

RTFA & STFU.

Heh. That made me giggle.


As for Green and Jackson, fire department officials said they were working as dispatchers out of fire department headquarters. But they had appropriate training to assist in an emergency. Some Au Bon Pain workers said they think the pair knew Rennix, that they had purchased breakfast from her in the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34516684/
 
2009-12-22 01:49:50 PM
ErinPac: Actually from this other article...

FDNY investigators have obtained a videotape from the Au Bon Pain on the day of the incident, department sources said.

Employees said they approached Green and Jackson for help for Rennix.

Shop worker Tareen Brown, 29, said the EMTs initially told workers that "if they reacted, they could get in trouble. They said they weren't allowed to touch her unless a call was made to 911 first."

His co-worker, Lourdes Colon, 19, said, "They said they couldn't do anything. They said they were trainees. They showed no sympathy at all."

Brown said that after Jackson and Green did not go to help Rennix, he went outside where there was a group of about 10 FDNY employees, and told them, "Somebody has fallen out. There's an emergency."

"They said, 'What do you want us to do? Call 911.' "

Jackson actually did call 911 from the Au Bon Pain, according to the union's Samerson.

But sources said Jackson told the dispatcher that Rennix had difficulty breathing -- despite the fact that the EMT never physically examined the stricken woman -- and left before the LICH crew arrived. Based on the information Jackson provided, the call was initially not treated as a critical emergency.

If they do get in trouble it will likely be for the 'help' they DID provide - the information to the dispatcher - which turned out to be of questionable quality, rather than the leaving - 10 other employees didn't help either, apparently, and they didn't say they were on break.



My gosh, seriously... please, STFU already.

Your lack of grasp and grok is nauseating.

If you're a parent, I weep for the future of our nation.
 
2009-12-22 01:51:13 PM
I trained as an EMT. You are NOT required by law to help a person when off duty (as an EMT). However, if you start to help someone, you must continue to do so until someone with higher authority can take over. You are also not covered by Good Samaritan Laws either if you have the proper training. In all probablity, even if they had helped, they would be looking at a law suit from the family.

That being said, they are still horrible examples of human beings.
 
Displayed 50 of 454 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report