Posted on 08/07/2006 5:16:16 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Scotto told this story on his Boston radio show this morning.
I assume that the incident occurred at a beach or pool somewhere in the Boston area. I didn't get the location.
Apparently, a three year old went under and became unconscious. A man managed to pull the three-year-old out of the water. The boy wasn't breathing and was unconscious.
The lifeguard at the scene refused to resuscitate the boy because he didn't have his "mouthpiece." Apparently, it's some kind of device that helps to prevent the transmission of germs during mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
A mother at the scene (not the boy's mother) performed CPR on the boy and managed to resuscitate the boy. Apparently, the boy is in good condition right now.
That lifeguard better get a mouthpiece (lawyer).
He should be fired for not having his mouthpiece.
Actually, he should be prosecuted for negligent disregard.
He should be fired immediately, of course.
Let's see, a man (not the lifeguard) pulled the boy out of the water. A woman, not the lifeguard, performed the CPR.
The lifeguard appears redundant. (code for useless)
If there was someone else to help what is the problem? Neither lifeguard not a physician has the legal duty to endanger his own health.
Moral (not legal one) duty to take a risk would come into play if there was not other person willing to do it.
But there is an issue why the "mouthpiece." was not there?
Maybe the lifeguard had HIV and knew someone else was going to perform cpr.
He should however be fired for not performing his job or being incapable of performing his job.
"Actually, he should be prosecuted for negligent disregard."
I wouldn't object if he were beaten senseless on general principles.
Neither lifeguards nor medical personnel are required to risk infection. Otherwise most of doctors and nurses would be already dead or being the source of new infections or pursuing other careers.
Only one thing in the whole story is for certain:
An ambulance-chaser will sue the government (local, county, state, or federal, whichever can be named) for multi-millions of dollars, and the taxpayer will pay the bill....the lifeguard, of course, will not pay anything at all....except to live with the consequences of his (in)action.
Or maybe he suspected the kid had HIV?
He should however be fired for not performing his job or being incapable of performing his job.
Exchanging body fluids is not required by the law. The question is why the mouthpiece was not there?
There were no consequences - kid was saved by someone else on the scene.
"Neither lifeguards nor medical personnel are required to risk infection."
He was worried about infection from a 3 year old? So worried that he was willing to let him die? We are breeding a generation of cowards and apologists for cowards.
I thought the very same thing. Granted, the chances of transmitting HIV through saliva are low compared with saving the life of a child. He could be slammed with anti-virals after the fact if the LG was forthright.
And yes, he should be subject to review and disciplined or fired for not having the requisite equipment to do his job. It's like a LEO going to work without his sidearm.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/9637779/detail.html
Could this be the story you are refering to? A little more detail here if it is.
The mouthpiece prevents germs - but I believe it got started being used when the "germ" people were worried about was HIV. The lifeguard should have figured out that the kid likely would have been safe to perform CPR on.
All those CPR courses where everyone is being taught to perform it - I don't think they insist that everyone carry mouthpieces around in their purses or pockets just in case!
According to the link you posted, it appears several lifeguards refused to perform CPR, citing lack of mouthpieces.
Unreal.
He was worried about infection from a 3 year old? So worried that he was willing to let him die? We are breeding a generation of cowards and apologists for cowards.
3 year old get infections as easily as the grown ups. The age has sentimental impact, but saving the life of older person is as valuable.
But I agree, he was a coward unless he knew that someone else was willing to do it and then he was rather selfish.
More than one lifeguard refused....? Whoa, that's pretty stinking bad if being reported correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.