Michael Stuart Kelly

So wrong on so many levels...

85 posts in this topic

So wrong on so many levels...

The following story is wrong on so many levels it's not funny. Granted, this is about a weak person, not a hero, but it still reads like a page out of Atlas Shrugged:

Elderly Woman Dies After Nurse Refuses to Give Her CPR
by Alyssa Newcomb
March 3, 2013
ABC News

From the article:

A 911 dispatcher pleaded with a nurse at a Bakersfield, Calif., senior living facility to save the life of an elderly woman by giving her CPR, but the nurse said policy did not allow her to, according to a newly released audiotape of the call.

“Is there anybody there that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die?” the dispatcher asked in a recording of the 911 call released by the Bakersfield Fire Department.

“Not at this time,” the nurse said.

The incident unfolded on Tuesday when 87-year-old Lorraine Bayless collapsed at Glenwood Gardens, a senior living facility in Bakersfield.

In the seven-minute, 16-second recording, the nurse told the dispatcher it was against the facility’s policy for employees to perform CPR on residents.

With every passing second, Bayless’ chances of survival were diminishing. The dispatcher’s tone turned desperate.

“Anybody there can do CPR. Give them the phone please. I understand if your facility is not willing to do that. Give the phone to that passerby,” the dispatchersaid. ”This woman is not breathing enough. She is going to die if we don’t get this started.”

The old lady did die.

And Glenwood Gardens officially said that the nurse did her job correctly. It's doing an "internal investigation" for show.


This is the direct result of the cover-your-ass legal culture we have here in the USA. And the ironic part is that Glenwood Gardens is probably going to be sued seven ways to Sunday--exactly what their idiotic bureaucratic policy was designed to avoid.

If you go to the ABC News site I linked to, you can hear some of the 911 call--the controlled exasperation of the dispatcher trying in vain to convince the Drooling Beast of mediocrity to get her head out of the rule-book and into reality. Just do something to let the old lady live...

But the Drooling Beast said she couldn't do anything because of the rules.

No wonder Dagny shot the guard in AS.

Damnation!

I don't think I am going to sleep well tonight...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I was both saddened and enraged by this when I heard it.

The essence of the meme that "I vass only following orders!" The Nuremberg "defense" which never should work because it is essentially inhumane.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding crass I will ask: Did the nurse have a contractual obligation to save the old lady? Did the law applying to nurses oblige the nurse to attempt CPR or obtain CPR to the old lady. If neither of these are the case then the nurse is free and clear legally.

Here is the unpleasant truth. No one has positive obligations to help anyone outside of a contractual or legal duty. With the possible exception that one is obliged to protect and support the life of incapable dependent children or charges. No one is obliged to toss a life preserver to a drowning adult, unless there is a contractual or legal duty to do so. Maybe someone familiar with the law in the U.S. can tell be if depraved neglect in the absence of contract is legally actionable under a tort or not.

Please do not get the wrong impression from the fact I raised the question. My own inclination is to be as helpful as possible short of putting my life or health at risk. I donate blood and I have administer the Heimlich maneuver once. It worked. I have not had an occasion to administer CPR although I know how.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

If you take a bunch of hardened criminals, put them on a desert island, give them freedom, but also "contractual obligations," come back in 6 months and see what those "contractual obligations" actually mean in reality and how much freedom is left.

Lemme guess... Hmmmm...

How about precious little?

My point is that freedom only works if people are decent human beings. If they are bastards, freedom doesn't hang around.

It doesn't matter whether the nurse had a "contractual obligation." A decent human being saves the life of another if there is a reasonable way to do so. The laws of nature take precedence over the laws of humans and a decent person recognizes this in an emergency.

A bureaucrat says it is not her problem because the laws of humans she follows do not allow for--or acknowledge--the laws of nature.

And that's when you get her, the bureaucratic nurse, who lives in a world where a human life means nothing unless it is provided for in her human-made rules. Once people get used to her, the bureaucratic, instead of the human being, later, when the metaphorical death panels of Obamacare become literal death panels, people will be ready for them.

Or be ready for gas chambers without too much fuss, like at an earlier time...

btw - Glenwood Gardens is a "senior living facility," not a "senior ignoring facility" or a senior dying facility." The very least one could hope for--nay, expect--in a place like that is for there to be someone around at all times to provide elementary emergency first-aid maneuvers until an ambulance arrives.

Suppose the old lady had cut herself badly. Should the nurse in a "senior living facility" be excused if she stood watching--on the telephone to emergency help at that--and let the poor woman bleed to death instead of making a tourniquet?

Gimmee a break.

Once common sense is supplanted by cover-your-ass and nitpicking rules--and this is thought be be proper in our society--we become dead inside. Emotionally, we become individuals without a species.

And you can count on it. The death of freedom is right behind...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Michael:

There was also a statement, which is virtually insane, by the public relations spokesperson that CPR can cause damage and that is why it is not allowed in their "rules!"

I mean you might break some ribs, so it is better to let the human being die!

Despicable.

A....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Here's a thought nobody talks about in our subculture, but it's true.

Mirror neurons cut both ways. They not only trigger real emotions inside you when you observe these emotions in others, you get terribly lonely and anxious when others don't emulate--or at least recognize in a nonverbal manner--your own emotions.

Nathaniel Branden knew this before mirror neurons were discovered. He called it "psychological visibility" and "the Muttnik principle."

Here's the rub. It's true that you can't love another person properly until you know how to love yourself. But that cuts the other way, too. You can't love yourself if you don't know how to love another.

As you can probably tell, I'm reaching a stage in my thinking where I'm becoming weary of a false dichotomy regarding selfishness. Some people in our subculture talk about the danger of watering down black and white. They say when everything is shades of gray, there is no moral clarity and the bad guys end up winning.

But what happens if you see black and white for black and white things, gray for gray things (with respective shades)--and also see the entire friggen' spectrum of color? And see it all around you? How do you talk to someone who only (or predominantly) sees black and white?

(That is, without getting aggravated or bored?)

Rand had an interesting concept for her protagonists. In her notes, she called it "the curse." This meant that they couldn't help seeing what they saw, even though folks all around them did not see it.

I feel like that at times, especially on this issue. I agree with selfishness and contracts and so forth. But I also agree with decency and helping out others in a pinch. I don't agree with one side over the other, like most people do (one favoring selfishness and the other favoring helping others).

We can--and do--have both as morally good.

We are individuals and we are members of a species. We are both, not one or the other.

It's like when I mentioned the other day about the dispute between those of faith versus atheists over the existence of God. Which side do I fall on? And I concluded that I rejected the debate. I see man, at this stage of evolution, not qualified to make statements of fact like that. So neither side represents absolute truth from where I sit. That's the way I see it. That's my "curse." I can't not see it--and believe me, I've tried...

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

Very well put.

One aspect of my love of politics, not the way it is being played out today, is that I can walk a long way with many different sides on specific issues of common ground.

One of my most frustrating observations of the militant atheism that big "O"bjectivists wear on their chests, is the almost pathological insistence on sticking the atheism in everyone's face regardless of the issue that they might be working on with a religious group in the community.

This "public purity psychosis" merely kills off spreading the other great ideas we possess and is essentially unnecessary grandstanding.

A,,,

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the LA Times blog (re the now-dead 87-year-old Lorraine Bayless, who collapsed while dining, and died later in hospital):

Bayless' daughter told KGET that she was a nurse and was satisfied with
her mother's care at Glenwood Gardens, the station reported.

My first thought was of a suitcase of cash flying through the air. My second thought was to find the 'induction' materials for potentional inmates at Glenwood Gardens -- to discover the 'we will not touch your mom/dad/hated elder if he/she/they collapse' policy, as spelled out in online promotions. Third thought being 'is Glenwood Gardens part of a chain like IHOP?' followed quickly by wondering about the number of removals from the ElderParkingIHOP roster of 'waiting to die' residents lists in the near future ... and I haven't yet got to the next thought. The top comment at the original story as cited by MSK was "these people should be executed."

In an Objectivist World, this would not/would happen, but the 'deal' between the waiting-to-die cargo and the cargo handlers would be much more explicit, I wager.

In any case, The Lawyers are already on the case, no doubt. Later, the most-outraged of the Most Senior Cargo 'insiders' will I hope publish a tell-all, buttressed by a wave of research that show X percent of cargo facilities have the exact same policy.

I also expect a few ruckuses at the next 90,000 meetings of various Angry (and or Concerned Seniors or their Advocates) Organizations.

Private enterprise, 'policy,' and a deep disempathy for CPR. This does not seem a winning combo for Cargo Facility of the Year awards.

I will enquire about any such 'policy' at the private cargo facility where I volunteer.

_______________

Added: That final thought turned out to be fantasy, again, of course. Me and Christoper Hitchens, him quite dead, me not quite so, both jovial and both tanked. He, emanating a withering contempt oddly like a fresh breeze off the water, chuckles and rattles his ice, my signal. I frown, eyeball a plug of scotch, touch the soda button, and return to his thesis again.

Okay, Hitch, you great dead fathead commie, you say that these bitches (not all women, them) who JQ Public says should be executed at Glastnost Garden Dump 'n' Die are no different than that other haggard and soulless monster 'Mother' Teresa. Ameyeright?

He chuckles, tinkles, I eyeball and spritz, and what he next says spins it fine enough for me to gather his points into a coherent and painful whole.

In the fantasy he paints a vivid picture of Mother Teresa 'lovingly' stroking the forehead of Lorraine as she dwindles away, after one of the Filipina care aides has first wiped away the mashed, gravy, and creamed corn from that same forehead.

It is so refreshing to see some Real Outrage here at OL. In light of that, here is the most moving picture of my last couple of weeks. This may haunt me going forward just as much as Nasty Teresa helping poor Lorraine through that final door.

Y9vu.jpeg

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I like your idea of cashing in on this affair, especially getting the inside story, then a book deal and maybe even a movie later... I can see some excellent profits. (That is supposed to be a quip, but it sounds so damn lame--the more I write on it, the lamer it gets...)

I'm surprised you missed (or took for granted) the cash cow, though: victimization.

Here is a real victim, a real 911 recording with real exasperation of a person wanting to help the victim, a real preventable death followed by a most real death where the deceased actually died dead, and, if you dig, probably a real big fat insurance policy with proceeds going to offspring. (All right, that last was gossip, but still...)

Coming from the Progressive camp, you should be able to squeeze this one for all its worth--blindfolded with one arm tied behind your back. You don't even have to make up anything or take anything out of context. Just run the standard oppressed class narrative across the facts and it comes up jackpot.

Now, if you could tie this into greed somewhere--and it looks like a piece of cake--it should be a no-brainer to plead for more government controls.

:smile:

(Just ribbin' ya'. Still, victims with credentials like that don't come along every day...)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving CPR to an 87-yr old woman could have resulted in multiple broken ribs. If she was breathing her heart was beating. I've not heard of CPR being needed if the patient was breathing. They should have administered oxygen at least. The 911 operator was not qualified to decide if CPR was called for in this case, only to give instructions on technique. If a heart attack and no heart beat I will do chest compressions only. If breathing, nothing. Drowning victim gets chest compressions for the first minute or two then standard CPR. Assuming the woman was not choking on food she could have suffered a stroke, heart attack, lung embolism or the rupture of an aneurysm if not outright splitting of an artery. If I had been there and congruent with the facts as reported I would have asked for oxygen. I would not be an employee at a facility with that blanket protocol with everybody standing around doing the stupid. Many nurses will let shit happen as long as they aren't contradicting the doctor's orders. A few of them have run into me over the years, to their regret. Once I had to let my father's surgeon dump on me because winning the argument would have been pointless. There are good and bad and in between nursing homes. The bad ones--well, to start with bed sores = bad. My soon-to-be 95 yo uncle has spent the last several years bed-ridden in a nursing home in Ohio. His friend and lawyer--next door neighbor--got him into the place and the care couldn't be better. I cannot imagine, however, any circumstances where the use of CPR would be appropriate in his case. Oxygen, sure.

--Brant

edit: reading the story the second time the 911 operator was not competent to determine if CPR was appropriate or needed in this case and didn't know what she was talking about respecting starting CPR--the reporter was also incompetent in her story as written--this whole thread has been a pain-in-the-ass--and head--for me to read and, no, I did not listen to the dispatcher, for if she said something germane not reported . . .

Edited by Brant Gaede
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authority-worship -> loss of individualism -> death of ego -> dearth of responsibility -> dereliction of professional pride -> denial of empathy -> disdain for life: "wrong on so many levels", for sure.

(Just wait, she'll be called "Selfish.")

It was a lefty U.S. writer who came to the conclusion: "I learned that it is the weak who are cruel, and that gentleness is to be expected only from the strong."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving CPR to an 87-yr old woman could have resulted in multiple broken ribs. If she was breathing her heart was beating. I've not heard of CPR being needed if the patient was breathing. They should have administered oxygen at least.

Brant:

Excellent pick up. I missed that she was still breathing. Does anyone have the exact transcript of the 911 call. I just tried searching for it and have not found it.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

If you take a bunch of hardened criminals, put them on a desert island, give them freedom, but also "contractual obligations," come back in 6 months and see what those "contractual obligations" actually mean in reality and how much freedom is left.

Lemme guess... Hmmmm...

How about precious little?

My point is that freedom only works if people are decent human beings. If they are bastards, freedom doesn't hang around.

It doesn't matter whether the nurse had a "contractual obligation." A decent human being saves the life of another if there is a reasonable way to do so. The laws of nature take precedence over the laws of humans and a decent person recognizes this in an emergency.

A bureaucrat says it is not her problem because the laws of humans she follows do not allow for--or acknowledge--the laws of nature.

And that's when you get her, the bureaucratic nurse, who lives in a world where a human life means nothing unless it is provided for in her human-made rules. Once people get used to her, the bureaucratic, instead of the human being, later, when the metaphorical death panels of Obamacare become literal death panels, people will be ready for them.

Or be ready for gas chambers without too much fuss, like at an earlier time...

btw - Glenwood Gardens is a "senior living facility," not a "senior ignoring facility" or a senior dying facility." The very least one could hope for--nay, expect--in a place like that is for there to be someone around at all times to provide elementary emergency first-aid maneuvers until an ambulance arrives.

Suppose the old lady had cut herself badly. Should the nurse in a "senior living facility" be excused if she stood watching--on the telephone to emergency help at that--and let the poor woman bleed to death instead of making a tourniquet?

Gimmee a break.

Once common sense is supplanted by cover-your-ass and nitpicking rules--and this is thought be be proper in our society--we become dead inside. Emotionally, we become individuals without a species.

And you can count on it. The death of freedom is right behind...

Michael

The "laws of nature" are the laws of physical phenomena. Morality and ethics, it would appear, cannot be either reduced to or derived from the underlying physical events and processes. Nature is not alive and nature does not give a damn. Nature is not sentient. Nature is active in the physical sense but is a un-alive as a red hot coal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

Here is my point (by example).

What is your primary concern when you drive?

1. Do not run into anyone (or anything, for that matter) or let anyone run into you; or

2. Obey the traffic laws.

Obviously you should do both and most people do, but I'm talking about first impulse. Your automatic mentality. You will do one or the other as a kneejerk reaction, not both. The other only kicks in after your mind has set one of them as the frame.

When people start with No. 1 by default, they are one kind of person. When they come to an intersection and the light is turning yellow, they will initially look to see who is around, then worry about the law. This applies to all areas of life. They may be good people or bad people, but they are relatively rational and predictible in an emergency.

People who start with No, 2 by default are all over the friggen' place. When they come to an intersection and the light is turning yellow, their initial concern will be whether they can beat the red light. Their gut reaction will be to worry more about getting caught than about looking left or right. This, also, applies to all areas of life. You can't trust them, even if they are good people, and you never know when they will destroy something because of the rules they have chosen to follow.

When the rules are laid down by nature (meaning cause and effect), they are the same for everyone. ALL rules made by humans, though, are contextual, changeable and open to interpretation. You can game human rules to your advantage. You cannot game causality.

People who think causality first get things done on their own. People who think human rules first get things done by kissing ass and manipulating people.

Do we really need to belabor this point? It's kinda master of the obvious stuff for a site where people interested in Rand hang out.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving CPR to an 87-yr old woman could have resulted in multiple broken ribs. If she was breathing her heart was beating. I've not heard of CPR being needed if the patient was breathing......

 

... no, I did not listen to the dispatcher, for if she said something germane not reported . . .

 

Brant,

 

This possibility was discussed in the video and the problem--from the dispatcher's words--seemed to be the old lady was stopping breathing.

 

The nurse's tone of voice indicated that she couldn't have cared less. She had her rules to follow. And from the dispatcher's tone, it appeared she was not shooting blind. She was asking about details and offering to walk anyone who would step up through what they needed to do until the ambulance arrived. The fact is, the nurse did not want to do anything, nor did she want to let anyone else do anything.

 

The 911 recording is not complete, but enough of it is played during the video to clearly get this gist. Let's see if this embeds...

 

 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the nurse did give the woman CPR and she did break a couple ribs, then the family sues the retirement centre--the nurse is fired.

The rule isn't their to protect the business from the law, it's to protect it from people who have the "right" to abuse the law.

Isn't the accountability on the family for sending their mother to a retirement centre with such a policy?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the nurse did give the woman CPR and she did break a couple ribs, then the family sues the retirement centre--the nurse is fired.

The rule isn't their to protect the business from the law, it's to protect it from people who have the "right" to abuse the law.

Isn't the accountability on the family for sending their mother to a retirement centre with such a policy?

How do you know this about the "rule"?

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

Separating the fact that the nurse was unemotional. Separating the personal feelings that you and I share about her non-action.

Objectively, as I have seen on other video versions of the 911 call, the operator clearly said, "...not breathing enough."

Now that is a contextual statement. That is why I am searching for the entire transcript of the seven plus (7+) minute 911 call.

Brant's point is well taken. As long as she was breathing, CPR is not called for. I also agree that oxygen would have been a sensible action.

I want to read the entire transcript.

A...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the nurse did give the woman CPR and she did break a couple ribs, then the family sues the retirement centre--the nurse is fired.

The rule isn't their to protect the business from the law, it's to protect it from people who have the "right" to abuse the law.

Isn't the accountability on the family for sending their mother to a retirement centre with such a policy?

How do you know this about the "rule"?

--Brant

I'm assuming it was put in place for legal purposes, as was mentioned in the original post.

Saving a life can be rationally selfish if the cost is small... And if the nurse is weighing this woman's life (87 and living in a retirement home) vs. keeping her job.... It's a bad situation to be in; I think that's all there is to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the nurse did give the woman CPR and she did break a couple ribs, then the family sues the retirement centre--the nurse is fired.

The rule isn't their to protect the business from the law, it's to protect it from people who have the "right" to abuse the law.

Isn't the accountability on the family for sending their mother to a retirement centre with such a policy?

How do you know this about the "rule"?

--Brant

I'm assuming it was put in place for legal purposes, as was mentioned in the original post.

Saving a life can be rationally selfish if the cost is small... And if the nurse is weighing this woman's life (87 and living in a retirement home) vs. keeping her job.... It's a bad situation to be in; I think that's all there is to it.

You should apply for a job on one of the Affordable Care Act's Death Panels.

Human life vs. costs = that's all there is to it...simple calculations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bayless' daughter told KGET that she was a nurse and was satisfied with

her mother's care at Glenwood Gardens, the station reported.

 

 ...suitcase of cash flying through the air

 ...find the 'induction' materials for potentional inmates at Glenwood Gardens

 ...discover the policy

 ...is Glenwood Gardens part of a chain

 ...enquire about any such 'policy' at the private facility where I volunteer.

 

So, my first thought was way off. No suitcase of money flew through the air from Glenwood Gardens to Bayless's daughter.

The 'induction materials' for Glenwood Gardens are standard, but standard for what is named 'assisted living.'** I looked over the offerings of Glenwood and discovered that it is almost exact kin to the 'assisted-living' wing of the facility I work at.

Promotion materials offer a superb nomenclature, however:

 

Glenwood Gardens located in Bakersfield, California offers Independent Living, Personalized Assisted Living, Alzheimers and Dementia Care, and Skilled Nursing Care options for seniors.

[from a separate promotion:]

Starting at $2,192/month

Brookdale Living's Bakersfield, CA community delivers Inspired Independent Living, with the promise of Exceptional Experiences Everyday. In choosing this community, our residents have made a conscious lifestyle decision designed to deliver enhanced opportunities for pursuing health and life fulfillment through the exceptional independent and assisted living services, amenities, and opportunities we offer.

 

Brookdale-Glenwood Gardens is indeed part of an IHOP: the 'Brookdale' refers to the larger corporate entity that owns the block. Brookdale has facilities in 36 states. California itself has 17 'Brookdale' communities, almost all of which include 'assisted living.'

What comprises Brookdale's distinction between 'independent living' and 'assisted living'? Briefly, a reserved seat in the dining room, and personal assistance (dressing, bathing, etc). An 'independent' senior does not expect much more of the facility beyond an apartment, concierge-ish services, and a certain amount of housekeeping assistance.

Ultimately, this facility that will not provide CPR is not a 'nursing home,' nor a 'care home,' nor a 'continuing care' home.

I suspect that one of the reason Bayless's daughter signaled her satisfaction is that she knows what contract she signed on behalf of her mother (or in concert with her mother). She likely knew exactly what would happen if mom dropped off in her mashed potatoes.

Re my own local privately owned (meaning non-IHOP, owner-operated), the Assisted Living protocols are similar.

What was impressed upon me by reality at the facility is the simplest. People die each week, in their beds and occasionally in their mashed potatoes. Many residents of the 'complex care' (which is different still from 'continuing care') are simply not expected to live very long or to be at risk of sudden death from multiple failures -- often unusual to my eyes (death from Alzheimer's). In the past several months I have lost six 'friends' from this cohort. Each death was sad for the care-givers, but like it or not, a part of the function of the place is dealing with the inevitable.

That said, the full nursing staff in 'complex care' is the equivalent of paramedic plus. But some patients/residents have asked for 'no heroics' ... 'no rescuscitation' and so on.

I feel a vague fantasy hangover today, and wonder what Hitch might say given the added context I dug up. Maybe that hangover is related to MSK's ribbling riposte to the deep cynicism in my previous post.

 

I still vaguely expect The Lawyers to be circling, although this is probably fantasy hangover too. There seems to be no 'case,' no investigation by any civil or police authority, no law broken and no particular surprise among officialdom that an old lady died in this particular circumstance. Bearing in mind that we have zero information on the actual health of Lorraine Bayless (at 87 she may be presumed to have had at least one health condition that meant she needed assistance), and that we have no actual cause of death ... no report (yet) of a post-mortem (and likely none ordered or expected) -- is there enough information to justify our conclusions?

 

I wrote earlier about the many future meetings of the Angry Seniors/Advocates ... I overstressed the 'angry' part. Such agencies as the AARP in the USA will no doubt have many other items on their discussion agendas.  And among the 'community' of senior cargo facility providers, this well-publicized incident may or may not lead to changes in standard policies across the industry.

 

There are a few questions I would ask of the daughter and of the hospital and of the paramedics. Does anyone else find a useful question that has not been posed or that they would like answered? Of course the daughter owes nothing to anyone by way of explanation of her stance, despite any wish to judge her as evul as the hands-off nurse.

 

_____________________

 

** I will let Brookdale itself tell us what Assisted Living means.

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent information William.

My single fact question of the para-medics who arrived, apparently, within ten (10) minutes, is was she still breathing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update and corrections. The latest reports (see here at ABC news) quote the poobahs of the Gardens as insisting that Bayless was a resident of 'Independent Living' quarters in their facility. This seems to me to be a dodge, but may well be true.**

The same ABC story says that a police investigation has been launched.

There are still discrepencies between reports. The ABC report says that Bayless "died later that day after being taken to a hospital by ambulance," while another story reports that Bayless had no pulse and was not breathing when paramedics arrived -- and that she was declared dead at the hospital.

One puzzling bit of the ABC report:

Spokeswoman Andrea Turner said Glenwood Gardens is an independent living facility.

"Independent Living communities do not provide medical services, as they are not licensed to do so. In an emergency, staff will call 911 and then wait with the person in need of assistance. Glenwood Gardens is an independent living facility which, by law, is not licensed to provide medical care to any of its residents,"

Glenwood Gardens is an "independent living facility"? Perhaps, but that is NOT how it is promoted. If anyone wants the links to the facility, say yeah.

One of the folks consulted by the ABC team had this to say, to further muddy the thoroughly muddy creek:

ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams said a question remains about the liability of Glenwood Gardens. Medical facilities are required to perform CPR on a person in distress. It's unclear whether Glenwood Gardens qualifies as a medical facility or is "essentially an apartment complex for the elderly," he said today on Good Morning America.

Hitchens is calling. I will be back tomorrow ...

[Added -- the full seven-minute plus 911 tape:

http://www.kget.com/media/lib/15/b/1/8/b18eb484-5198-4027-971d-271d26308006/Glenwood_Gardens_911_call.mp3 ]

______________

** True. She was a resident of the separate Independent Living quarters on the Greenbrook 'campus.' Competing news organs have made a hash of the 'do not rescuscitate' order that was/was not on file, or was/was not given or displayed to the EMT personnell who arrived on scene.

Adam, an EMT (fire department) representative -- battalion chief -- has been cited as saying she was not breathing and had no pulse when they began CPR upon arrival and checking the DNR status ...

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the nurse did give the woman CPR and she did break a couple ribs, then the family sues the retirement centre--the nurse is fired.

The rule isn't their to protect the business from the law, it's to protect it from people who have the "right" to abuse the law.

Isn't the accountability on the family for sending their mother to a retirement centre with such a policy?

How do you know this about the "rule"?

--Brant

I'm assuming it was put in place for legal purposes, as was mentioned in the original post.

Saving a life can be rationally selfish if the cost is small... And if the nurse is weighing this woman's life (87 and living in a retirement home) vs. keeping her job.... It's a bad situation to be in; I think that's all there is to it.

I hate to be this blunt and tried to avoid it, but you don't know what you are talking about. You keep mixing up speculation with knowing, but the former isn't the latter.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now