Rescue not part of Constitution, appeals court says in tot's death

Post-Gazette.com ^ | August 12, 2002 | AP

[Damocles]

PHILADELPHIA -- The Constitution does not require the government to provide competent rescue services for citizens, a federal appeals court has ruled.

A three-judge panel decided last week against Charmaine Brown and Oral Douglas, whose 1-year-old son died in 1998 after choking on a grape. Their civil rights lawsuit charged that Shacquiel A. Douglas died because emergency workers arrived too late and were not trained properly.

[Damocles]

I feel for the parents, but to blame the paramedics responding to the scene is ridiculous. I'm glad to see the ruling was in their favor, they put up with enough on the job without the fear of these types of lawsuits.

[Paul Atreides]

and were not trained properly.

Quota beneficiaries?

[Texas_Jarhead]

"hopefully it won't set as bad a precedent as it looks on its face."
Bullstuff. Hopefully it well stand as the good precedent that it appears to be.

[Texas_Jarhead]

LOL! good one

[Paul Atreides]

Thanks. Isn't it amazing how real life is getting crazier than The Onion?

[Parole Man]

This would fall under the same ruling that law enforcement does not exist to prevent any specific crime, but only as a general crime deterrant. Otherwise, one could sue the police department if an officer was writing a traffic ticket at the time a forcible felony occurred. For the paramedics, they also could be sued if they responded to a "low priority" call and were unavailable for a more serious call. Like you, I feel for the family, but have to agree if no direct causal link could be established, there are no grounds to sue.

[Dog Gone]

"It's funny there is an onslaught of these cases," Istvan said. "There is no affirmative right under the Constitution for the government to protect you from private violence. It would be different if the state created the danger itself."

It's not funny at all.

The tendency, based entirely on liberal ideology, is to blame someone else for your own misfortune. Worse, they believe that someone else should be held accountable.

This is exactly why doctors are giving up their practices, and why nobody in their right mind would stop to help a stranded motorist in a large city.

No good deed goes unpunished in a world dominated by liberals.

[StriperSniper]

No good deed goes unpunished in a world dominated by liberals.

BUMP!

[hinckley buzzard]

The decision is correct. Even if there was a "duty to rescue," this does not rise to the level of "deliberate indifference."

[Ole Okie]

Worse, they believe that someone else should be held accountable.

Even worse, their lawyers believe that someone else should pay BIG bucks.

Thankfully a little common sense prevailed in this decision.

[Old Professer]

Hold on, the grape was removed and two days later the kid dies of asphyxiation?

Did someone miss a grape or am I missing something in this story?

Sue the second hospital, not the paramedics.

[FreeperinRATcage]

It's called brain damage from anoxia. Basically the kids brain was fried by the time his airway got cleared.

I'm a medic in this area...let me check a few things out....

[jae471]

Hold on, the grape was removed and two days later the kid dies of asphyxiation?

There could have been severe brain damage...

[Khepera]

"States are not constitutionally obligated to provide rescue services to their citizens, nor are they constitutionally required to provide competent rescue services when they voluntarily choose to undertake this task," 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Richard L. Nygaard wrote.

Lets see now, can this apply to welfare?

[Damocles]

Shameless bump...

[goldstategop]

The Court ruling is correct. The government is under no obligation to provide law enforcement or rescue services for any particular citizen. Its a longstanding principle of law that goes back to the 19th century. Lesson of the day is you want to save someone's life, you gotta step up to the plate and do it yourself. People have become too dependent on expecting the government to do everything for them when they should be doing it for themselves. Kudos for the "self reliance" Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote should be a part of our national character.

[MissAmericanPie]

So the parents, after feeding a one year old a grape, managed to lay aside their grief and self blame long enough to retain a lawyer.

[goldstategop]

An honest lawyer could have told them that since the state has sovereign immunity they should just have gotten on with their lives. Now they're poorer for it and this is where the greed of lawyers looking to make a quick buck has made a joke out of our legal system. Gevalt!!!

[Rainmist]

There is no way in hell I would feed a one year old a grape unless it were cut into four small pieces. As these parents saw, it is the perfect size for lodging in a windpipe. Unfortunately, it was just bad judgement, but there is no need to sue.

[FreeperinRATcage]

Its Philadelphia...thats always a good reason to sue.