So wrong on so many levels...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shane,

What a pleasure to see you again.

... when someone's mulling what the consequences are going to be for assisting one in need, there's something wrong with the system.

Within the context of imminent danger or emergency like with this case, I fully agree with you.

But the root of the problem is the thinking system that underlies the social system. People are being trained like seals on a ball to follow orders first, then look at reality. They are being conditioned this way like Pavlov's dogs.

This is so deep in our culture it caught me by surprise. Look at pop entertainment and you will frequently see this is the subtext. Look at the books taught in public school and this is mostly the subtext. Look at higher learning and this is the subtext for JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING (with some lonely exceptions).

Everywhere you look, people are rewarded for adhering to rules under stress and punished for reacting to reality first. Here's a typical case from 3 days ago: Fla. high school student reportedly suspended after disarming gunman. School policy for anyone involved in a fight, you know.

It's a wonder independent-thinking people still emerge in this system.

Here's what I find interesting in your case. I would normally expect an "orders first then reality" approach in the armed forces. What I see in you, though, is a healthy look at natural facts first, then the rules. And I observe this in a lot of people coming from the armed forces these days.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent observation Michael.

I am dealing with this specific issue with a current client's twelve (12) year old son who, as a golden gloves fighter, his parents own a gym and real estate, was "shadow" boxing in the back of his classroom last Friday.

The teacher called the police and they interrogated the young man without his parents, or, an attorney present.

Zero tolerance policy. I am now in the process of taking this unconstitutional policy into the Federal District Court.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shane,

What a pleasure to see you again.

... when someone's mulling what the consequences are going to be for assisting one in need, there's something wrong with the system.

Within the context of imminent danger or emergency like with this case, I fully agree with you.

But the root of the problem is the thinking system that underlies the social system. People are being trained like seals on a ball to follow orders first, then look at reality. They are being conditioned this way like Pavlov's dogs.

This is so deep in our culture it caught me by surprise. Look at pop entertainment and you will frequently see this is the subtext. Look at the books taught in public school and this is mostly the subtext. Look at higher learning and this is the subtext for JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING (with some lonely exceptions).

Everywhere you look, people are rewarded for adhering to rules under stress and punished for reacting to reality first. Here's a typical case from 3 days ago: Fla. high school student reportedly suspended after disarming gunman. School policy for anyone involved in a fight, you know.

It's a wonder independent-thinking people still emerge in this system.

Here's what I find interesting in your case. I would normally expect an "orders first then reality" approach in the armed forces. What I see in you, though, is a healthy look at natural facts first, then the rules. And I observe this in a lot of people coming from the armed forces these days.

Michael

I agree with the Pavlov's dog assimilation, which begins with lazy parenting, and then really gets instilled when the kid goes to (public) school.

But having your own (selfish) standards of right and wrong is not enough, you have to also take into account how the ubiquitous presence of "authority" can affect you in reality.

There is something wrong with the system, obviously, but the system is in place and should be acknowledged all the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from those principally involved. From a newish (by 2 hours) Gillian Mohney story at ABCNews. I have not seen the family statement in full if it is available. Takehome message from this cynic -- the first ass-covering fit of bafflegab 'policy' by Mr NoFace Toomey of SeniorIHOP was fudge. What was the Nixon White House term for that? 'Non-operative'? Gah, the ravages of age and hanging out with Fantasy Hitchens.

Emphases added.

Brookdale Senior Living, which owns Glendale Gardens, initially said the employee was following company policy by waiting for first responders instead of administering medical care herself. But on Tuesday, the company released a statement saying that the employee had not understood the company's guidelines and was on voluntary leave pending an investigation.

"The incident resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents," the Tennessee-based company said. A spokesperson for Brookdale Senior Living said there would also be a companywide review of its emergency medical policies.

In its statement, Bayless' family said the incident provided "a lesson we can all learn from." The family also announced it had no intention of suing the facility.

"It was our beloved mother and grandmother's wish to die naturally and without any kind of life prolonging intervention," the family said. "We understand that the 911 tape of this event has caused concern, but our family knows that mom had full knowledge of the limitations of Glenwood Gardens and is at peace."

"We regret that this private and most personal time has been escalated by the media," the statement said.

According to fire officials, Bayless did not have a Do Not Resuscitate Order, but this was not confirmed by the family or Glendale Gardens.

The incident not only made national headlines but has also triggered several investigations. The Kern County Aging and Adult Services is looking into possible elder abuse, and the Bakersfield police are working to determine if a crime was committed when the nurse refused to find someone to perform CPR.

Adam, was there a link missing in the big excerpt above at #27?

Penuitimate question -- how many doctors/GPs/Geriatricians do we have here at OL? There have been a few confident statements about percentage chances (of recovery) and at least one confident statement that Lorraine Bayless would obviously have been saved from death by CPR. Has anyone a deep enough confidence in their percentages and medical knowledge to supply us with a link or warrant for such statements?

I wish we had a straightforward Objectivish nutter like whatsisname in Florida who took deep and (insane?) aggressive umbrage at our MSK back in the day of Abandoned Baby In the Woods ...

I will go re-read that thread and see if Hitchens is ready for another seminar with me.

This is the TALK of the town at my Seniors Cargo Facility. No consensus but that all should Follow The Orders (of the individual patient/resident). General consensus also that nobody outside the privacy loop knows what was ailing Lorraine, and no one knows the date or circumstances of their own death but suicides.

I am thinking of my mom's final moments in my arms. Should I have pulled her onto the floor and banged her about? No. This was death.

Finally, has anyone here planned out their final days? Is anyone planning to be housed in an expensive campus like Glenwood Gardens?

________________

Added: "there was no crime committed" says the Bakersfield PD, who have finished their investigation, according to local news station KGET.

"On Monday, March 4, 2013, the Bakersfield Police Department initiated a preliminary investigation involving Lorraine Bayless, a resident of Glenwood Gardens, located at 350 Calloway Drive,

"The investigation focused specifically on the events of Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at approximately 11:06 a.m. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there were any criminal violations, as defined by the California Penal Code, pertaining to the death of Bayless.

"A thorough review was conducted of all the facts surrounding the case. The investigation revealed that no criminal statutes had been violated. As of Wednesday March 6, 2013, the Bakersfield Police Department has concluded its investigation and will not be filing any any criminal charges against any of the individuals involved in the case."

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for backtracking on policy might be a policy of instruction for staff not to do CPR opens up the home to suit and even homicide charges against whosoever was responsible for the policy. While no one can force someone to do CPR, it's quite another matter to prohibit an employee from doing so absent an operative do not do that legal structure from the principal and or family. If this had happened in my home with my 96 yo mother I'd not have done CPR. Nine years younger, I would have. However, I was intimately sensitve to what was what with her at various times of her life. On Xmas day 2005 I was called to the hospital where she was dying of pneumona and CHF. I gave permission to put her on a respirator. (It was a dreadful feeling to literally hold her life in my hands.) If I hadn't she would have died. She lived almost aother 6 yrs in a pretty good life all considered. It had so much to do with what I knew about her and my medical knowledge and experience. Once when my mother was on various heart and blood pressure meds--it was friday night--her bp was too low so I wasn't going to give her her regular bp meds, but I first spent seveal hours researching each med on the Internet and their interactions with each other. Thus I determined it was okay to stop one and reduce another, so I did. I did not call her doctor. Anyway, she ended up in the hospital wherein I related the status of her meds and what I had done. Some lady came into her room and started asking me questions about what I had done and lecturing me about doing what I had done without going thru her doctor, etc. I didn't point out to her my medical POA which meant her talking to me about that was no more appropriate than talking to her about that assuming she was competent and had decided on her own to change her meds no matter what the reason. That is, her doctor could talk to her (and me) about that, but not that officious lady who was not. She was suffused with the idea of doctor authority. Well, every year in the USA 100,000 hospital patients, each under a doctor's care, die of medical mistakes. She was almost threatening me with Adult Protective Services. I had had a run in with APS 2 yrs before. I ran the lady off the property after she showed up without an appointment. That was the first of two such incidents all caused by her Bank of America reporting me for suspicious this or that. No joy for APS in either case. You have to slam these people. I got this idea from reading about a guy in the Soviet Gulag who didn't hesitate to slam the guys who ran his camps to get respect and space.

The dead lady's family put her into assisted living. It might have hastened her death. Dunno. I took care of my father for over 16 yrs and then my mother for over 8. No assisted living for them. In olden times here in Arizona was a very poor tribe of indians. When an oldsteer decided he was a burden he simply walked away and never came back. He was not old age affordable. Today it's generally too much bother to bother with mom and dad.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, Adam and Michael - Thank you! It's great to be back. It'll be in trickles. Lots of things have changed. Namely, I'm now retired as of 1 Feb. I recently separated from my wife (amicable split) and have found a new love in my life who happens to live in Canada. I intend on going to her and attend college for majoring in English (with a focus on writing novels) and minoring in Philosophy.

To the discussion at hand...

Tony - I haven't read any follow-ups, but whether or not she feels remorse didn't come across. She does have to live with it, but I wonder how much guilt she feels now, or what she'll feel down the road. System or no system, she didn't act.

Adam - Reminds me of the book I read (suggested by Michael), Influence: Science and Practice by Robert Cialdini. Your situation differs a bit than that of the nurse. Your event was like the book, in that people put in certain situations don't know how to act and will wait for someone else to act first. Then the group mentality kicks in and it's like ants at a picnic. The nurse knew what was going on and chose not to act.

Michael - I abhor how schools manipulate the masses in that way. Definitely takes good parenting to have your children aware of that so they can practice free will. As for the military aspect, we are taught to lead, not manage. Leadership, in that context, means following your gut instinct on what is the right orders to follow and which to contest.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dead lady's family put her into assisted living.

Great and very moving post, Brant -- food for thought on many levels. It seems sad to me that there is no one to take care of you as you have taken care of your parents. That particular culture of in-family caring is a smaller one, I believe, than it once was. Why, when I was a boy, we ....

The dead lady's family did not put her into Assisted Living, Brant. Wrong detail, anyway: this was Independent Living, which is not Assisted Living. Beyond that, young Arizonan, you do not know anything about who put whom where as it pertains to this family. It could be that Lorraine Bayless herself chose the facility. You gave a knuckle rap to another commentator for this very thing, assuming knowledge.

It is hard to compress all the outrage in the world onto one pinhead, but I think we OLers have managed it in this thread. Regardless in some cases of facts, regardless of details of the family life that we are not privy to. I regret my initial mistakes in reporting, despite the corrections I appended. I realized my reaction was formed of part-prejudgment and part arrogance. These are dangerous to rational cognition, and I am as prone to them as anyone here.

I think I need to tell Hitchens to fuck off out of my fantasies and give myself another reading of Carol Tavris's marvelous book, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts."

What I appreciated most about this book is that each illustrative example is taken from real-world events that we/I lived through. She shows the continuing danger of cognitive evasion of responsibility, of evasion of the facts of reality. This evasion suffuses politics like blood in a body, though.

[extremely boring Canadian politics aside, social masochists eyes only: In BC today, the big scandal of the month is that the provincial government used government resources to pursue partisan electoral/political (party) goals. The premier, bless her soul, was quoted as saying 'Mistakes were made.' She accepted the resignation of her personal assistant of many long years (who may have been the originator and primary actor in the illicit campaign). She accepted the resignation of a cabinet minister who had Fuck All to do with the ethical void in the premier's office. She alluded under harsh questioning in the legislature to a situation that might require further resignations (which was tealeaf-read to suggest she might step down herself once the 'investigation' is completed).

Which is all fine and dandy, for her government will be shown the door in May, and she is likely to lose her own seat. Pride, amour propre, political calculation, hiding under the covers so the monster can't get you, denial of responsibility. As if the lady had slept through the last three scandal+premier resignations in our history: Vanderzalm, Harcourt, Clark.)

Sometimes, the expedient turns out to be fatal. But the crust of denial is still pulled into place as if a raincoat, while the Mistakes soak through to the bone.]

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be that CPR for the Old Lady was not the right course of action.

Bob,

Possibly. We'll never know.

But at least we know for a fact that NOT doing that CPR was not the right course of action. The Old Lady died.

Michael

But she followed protocol... if she had done CPR and something had gone wrong, now there's someone to blame.

If they were going to pay for CPR training, to provide this "service", the cost of living in the place would be higher. I still don't get what is so surprising about this... there's been way worse stuff that's happened at retirement centres.

I'll say this simply: the law does not necessarily reflect what is moral and we can still make our own judgement calls. Not everything is an economic transaction. I reasonably assume that that nurse has CPR training.
Samson, There is so much that's correct in what you say - given our contemporary context of law and capitalism, as compromised as they are. Sadly correct, and badly wrong.

In admittedly purist terms, none of it is really just "an economic transaction". It is all and only a moral interchange between individuals.

Following that, the law should not be the maker of morals but their defender.

The Trader Principle is much broader than economic (I believe) involving all kinds of exchange of human values; and individual rights and non-initiation of force pertain here, too.

However these are all one package deal, that can't be isolated - a package which draws its moral base from rational self-interest. Pulled apart these elements can

be trivialized: divide and destroy.

Outside of that, what can be said to that large or small proportion of our fellow citizens who would bargain their independent minds for one more day of societal approval and State-supplied security?

With this episode, how possibly does a person deny her full range of individuality

- her instincts too - except through pathological self-lessness?

The law doesn't really have to do with morality, not on an individual level, anyway. We have it to keep order. Rand used the word justice a lot, where it did not apply. Her version of "a ruthless devotion to justice" was really a devotion to a set of rules necessary to keep order. It is not whether something is fair or not, in one person's circumstances, but whether or not everyone would be able to do the same thing in their own, separate sets of circumstances.

I do not understand the guilt being associated here with following orders the way the nurse did. How can we know what personal risk she considered with engaging in the act? I'm simply looking at it from a legal standpoint, and if it is the facility's policy, and it is no secret, then what can you do? You may as well feel guilty about every dollar you spend on yourself and every hour you relax because you could be making and donating money to help feed starving children.

I don't think we should blindly follow "rules", I think we should consider what could happen--and that includes how other human beings will react.

If you think you'd rather go to jail for saving a life than sit idly by, why not accept equal responsibility for every other person you don't help? If you are willing to accept jail time in order to save a stranger's life, in what way are you NOT making a sacrifice. If knowing that one person died and you could have saved them if only you had been willing to go to jail, is too much to live with, how can you not look at the world and go insane? There are many more opportunities to help people in desperate need at much lower costs...

Calvin, There's separation and there's involvement, and finding the distinction is an ongoing

conscious effort. I don't know any easy answers, but we thrash it out here and it helps set the

platform for our future acts in their contexts.

Right in front of you, is 'something'- a situation - a person. You can do something, then again

you have the right not to. Turn around, and nobody else is there. Isn't this a 'the buck stops here' moment? So what to do? Then add in that you're a professional, dedicated, trained and focused on exactly this

sort of situation - and you're ordered not to interfere. Who judges?

The law is the law, as you indicate, but one should never leave out individual values. Does one

"sacrifice" oneself for those values? It depends - a lesser value for a higher one, is not a

sacrifice, it's a gain. One doesn't know the worth of those values often, until the balance of choice is presented. (I'd suffer this - for that.)

It's the collectivizing and authoritizing of societies which stifles those choices, I'm convinced.

It sets people in conflict with themselves like seized engines.

In the big scheme of things, it's irrational (insane) to believe one can fix the world. If you

have a particular skill, or are hugely wealthy, and think you can make a difference in one

specific area you care deeply about - then I think it is morally selfish to lend your aid, and probably immoral not to.

BTW, it seems you have Rand and "justice" a bit haywire. It's not about rules; she mostly (almost exclusively, I think)

wrote and spoke about 'personal' justice - as the larger concept subsuming 'judgment'. Judging, and giving one's

unstinting praise and respect for good and moral deeds, while 'condemning' the bad and evil ones, is O'ist justice.

(I'm uncomfortable with the biblical terms, but softening them reduces their impact to the point of feebleness.) Check out the Lexicon for Justice.

BTW2, I think at times you catch yourself between the two stools of Rothbard and Rand...but you

try to work things out for yourself, and that's No.1 in my book. Not being patronising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do not know anything about who put whom where as it pertains to this family. It could be that Lorraine Bayless herself chose the facility. You gave a knuckle rap to another commentator for this very thing, assuming knowledge.

You got me on this one, William. Her family released a statement to the effect that she chose the facility and why but there is no good reason to suppose choice was actually involved through all levels--that is, chose from these facilities, mom, but maybe not whether to chose between living at home or a facility. Overall I let that family off the hook unless somehing really bad actually turns up. Lots of elderly people live at home to sundry detriments and are better off elsewhere--so too their families. There is too much data outsiders don't and can't know. In this case, also, various state regulations may be involved. And the latest out is LB died of a stroke.

The biggest hoot I've come across is some academic "ethicist" who stated that when a 911 operator says start CPR one is thereby compelled to do that. A law may state that but it isn't ethical.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Reminds me of the book I read (suggested by Michael), Influence: Science and Practice by Robert Cialdini.

Shane,

Since you said you are interested in writing novels and will be going to college to study it, I have another book suggestion: Hit Lit: Cracking the Code of the Twentieth Century's Biggest Bestsellers by James W. Hall.

There are several writing books I have gone through recently that I wish I had read years ago, but I'm suggesting this one right now because it is a great book to encourage you to think independently about core issues before getting in front of academics..

Hall is a successful author, but he derived his book from college classes he taught. He had his class analyze mega-best-sellers and see what common characteristics all of them had. After mulling over a bunch of different bestsellers and group analyzing them over several years of teaching this class, he set some rigid criteria for the 12 bestsellers he included in his book and came up with 12 characteristics they all had in common.

Although Rand's works were not included as the ones he focused on, he did discuss her in passing. And, interestingly enough, both of her major novels hit the 12 characteristics and hit them hard.

Since I presume you will get a dose of "esoteric quest for meaning" and stylistic monkey-shines kind of orientation in your college classes as the best way to write, this should prove to be a good initial antidote for the most toxic effects and, possibly, save you years of quiet desperation wondering why what you learned at school ain't working.

At the worst, it will give you great food for thought and a new way to look at popular literature.

(If I sound biased against formal education, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Not completely, but I believe you have to look both at school and at the market--with emphasis on the market.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more posts from me needing quoted material. Let me know when the software is fixed.

edit: changed computers, software still sucks

--Brant

No more posts from me needing quoted material. Let me know when the software is fixed.

edit: changed computers, software still sucks

--Brant

You changed computers? Could I have your old one? You still owe me on the honey.

Carol

honorary librarian again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(If I sound biased against formal education, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Not completely, but I believe you have to look both at school and at the market--with emphasis on the market.)

Michael

Checking out the link now. I'm with you on the bias, and probably more going to a college in Canada. However, my academic approach is pure mechanics. I have difficulty putting my thoughts into words. I have more difficulty being concise. And my grammar could really use some polishing. Do I want to learn what's out there? Certainly. It's why I try to read as often as I do. It helps me sit on the sidelines and watch some great plays.

I think that book will definitely help, but I'm also no mainstream high school graduate. Those teachers are going to be hit with questions infused with the word "why?" haha! I'm going to get under their skin, or be their best friend. I don't see a middle ground here ;)

Thanks again for having my six, Michael.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the full statement from the Bayless family:

"Our mother and grandmother was a remarkable and intelligent woman who was blessed to have a great life of 87 years. It is the wish of our family to honor and celebrate her life at this personal time.

"Like so many seniors, it was our mother's wish to live independently. She was fully aware that Glenwood Gardens did not offer trained medical staff. Even so, she personally selected the senior living community, and our family has come to know the staff and been very pleased with Glenwood Gardens as her home.

"It was our beloved mother and grandmother's wish to die naturally and without any kind of life-prolonging intervention. Our family respects the right of all people to make their own life choices in such cases.

"We regret that this private and most personal time has been escalated by the media. Caregivers, nurses and other medical professionals have very difficult waters to tread in the legal and medical landscape of our country today.

"We understand that the 911 tape of this event has caused concern, but our family knows that mom had full knowledge of the limitations of Glenwood Gardens, and is at peace. We also have no desire, nor is it the nature of our family, to seek legal recourse or try to profit from what is a lesson we can all learn from.

"We wish to focus on our family at this time, and this will be our final comment on this personal matter."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What college a

(If I sound biased against formal education, I guess I'm guilty as charged. Not completely, but I believe you have to look both at school and at the market--with emphasis on the market.)

Michael

Checking out the link now. I'm with you on the bias, and probably more going to a college in Canada. However, my academic approach is pure mechanics. I have difficulty putting my thoughts into words. I have more difficulty being concise. And my grammar could really use some polishing. Do I want to learn what's out there? Certainly. It's why I try to read as often as I do. It helps me sit on the sidelines and watch some great plays.

I think that book will definitely help, but I'm also no mainstream high school graduate. Those teachers are going to be hit with questions infused with the word "why?" haha! I'm going to get under their skin, or be their best friend. I don't see a middle ground here ;)

Thanks again for having my six, Michael.

~ Shane

What college in Canada? I could maybe get you a discount.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from those principally involved. From a newish (by 2 hours) Gillian Mohney story at ABCNews. I have not seen the family statement in full if it is available. Takehome message from this cynic -- the first ass-covering fit of bafflegab 'policy' by Mr NoFace Toomey of SeniorIHOP was fudge. What was the Nixon White House term for that? 'Non-operative'? Gah, the ravages of age and hanging out with Fantasy Hitchens.

Emphases added.

Brookdale Senior Living, which owns Glendale Gardens, initially said the employee was following company policy by waiting for first responders instead of administering medical care herself. But on Tuesday, the company released a statement saying that the employee had not understood the company's guidelines and was on voluntary leave pending an investigation.

"The incident resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents," the Tennessee-based company said. A spokesperson for Brookdale Senior Living said there would also be a companywide review of its emergency medical policies.

In its statement, Bayless' family said the incident provided "a lesson we can all learn from." The family also announced it had no intention of suing the facility.

"It was our beloved mother and grandmother's wish to die naturally and without any kind of life prolonging intervention," the family said. "We understand that the 911 tape of this event has caused concern, but our family knows that mom had full knowledge of the limitations of Glenwood Gardens and is at peace."

"We regret that this private and most personal time has been escalated by the media," the statement said.

According to fire officials, Bayless did not have a Do Not Resuscitate Order, but this was not confirmed by the family or Glendale Gardens.

The incident not only made national headlines but has also triggered several investigations. The Kern County Aging and Adult Services is looking into possible elder abuse, and the Bakersfield police are working to determine if a crime was committed when the nurse refused to find someone to perform CPR.

Adam, was there a link missing in the big excerpt above at #27?

Penuitimate question -- how many doctors/GPs/Geriatricians do we have here at OL? There have been a few confident statements about percentage chances (of recovery) and at least one confident statement that Lorraine Bayless would obviously have been saved from death by CPR. Has anyone a deep enough confidence in their percentages and medical knowledge to supply us with a link or warrant for such statements?

I wish we had a straightforward Objectivish nutter like whatsisname in Florida who took deep and (insane?) aggressive umbrage at our MSK back in the day of Abandoned Baby In the Woods ...

I will go re-read that thread and see if Hitchens is ready for another seminar with me.

This is the TALK of the town at my Seniors Cargo Facility. No consensus but that all should Follow The Orders (of the individual patient/resident). General consensus also that nobody outside the privacy loop knows what was ailing Lorraine, and no one knows the date or circumstances of their own death but suicides.

I am thinking of my mom's final moments in my arms. Should I have pulled her onto the floor and banged her about? No. This was death.

Finally, has anyone here planned out their final days? Is anyone planning to be housed in an expensive campus like Glenwood Gardens?

________________

Added: "there was no crime committed" says the Bakersfield PD, who have finished their investigation, according to local news station KGET.

"On Monday, March 4, 2013, the Bakersfield Police Department initiated a preliminary investigation involving Lorraine Bayless, a resident of Glenwood Gardens, located at 350 Calloway Drive,

"The investigation focused specifically on the events of Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at approximately 11:06 a.m. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there were any criminal violations, as defined by the California Penal Code, pertaining to the death of Bayless.

"A thorough review was conducted of all the facts surrounding the case. The investigation revealed that no criminal statutes had been violated. As of Wednesday March 6, 2013, the Bakersfield Police Department has concluded its investigation and will not be filing any any criminal charges against any of the individuals involved in the case."

Yes, and and yes. Having spent a large part of my youth visiting Cargo Facilities, and hearing my youngish and then midde-aged and then old mother extolling the excellences of Lonicera Hall (assisted living) and Lincourt Manor (end of the line, run by her niece)I have always expected to end up in one and then the other, unless I just drop dead unexpectedly. They are both nice places and when I get there. really,what will be important to me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for that do not resus. order that gets the family off the hook. Without that it's all pr bs.

--Brant

I was a Special Forces Aidman trained in internal medicine, wound debridement, cricroidthyroidotomy, amputation, anesthesia, emergency medicine, emergency dental and what have you with 25 yrs experience with elder care and for a year in Vietnam I was referred to as a doctor by the Vietnamese--ever see a baby the day before it died from tetanus?--ever see a baby in a crib--a video or film--with rabies?--WTF is this credential shit?--I don't need no stinkin' credentials!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking of my mom's final moments in my arms. Should I have pulled her onto the floor and banged her about? No. This was death.

+

I am thinking of the same moment with my own mother.She died beside me, in an instant, in the car. Within moments she was in her grandson's arms, getting CPR, but it was death, on the roadside in the fog, and I saw her beautful grey green eyes turned cold agate, turned to cold stone, but I could not believe it and I could not bear to close them.

Link to comment
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

I administered CPR in a helicopter to a shot in the head dying South Vietnamese soldier. My mother choking on a pill got a slap in the back which worked. I was afraid the H. Man. might badly hurt her. I had remembered a controversy in NY State because NY rec. the slap first (on a poster) then the H. man. and how pissed off the H. guys were at that. I used the NY State technique. A younger, less frail person, would have gotten the classic. The criticism of the NY State rec. was that a slap might cause the obstruction to get more firmly lodged. A 12-yo just recently saved the life of his teacher using the H.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, has anyone here planned out their final days? Is anyone planning to be housed in an expensive campus like Glenwood Gardens?

Yes, and and yes. Having spernt a large part of my youth visiting Cargo Facilities, and hearing my youngish and then midde-aged and then old mother extolling the excellences of Lonicera Hall (assisted living) and Lincourt Manor (end of the line, run by her niece)I have always expected to end up in one and then the other, unless I just drop dead unexpectedly. They are both nice places and when I get there. really,what will be important to me?

When you get there, really, what will be important to you? Hmmmm. Let me guess.

  1. Dinner
  2. Lunch
  3. Breakfast
  4. Snacks
  5. Pub Night
  6. Shuttlebus to Bingo
  7. Bingo
  8. Snacks
  9. Gossipy 'friends'
  10. Bitching about the food
  11. Hockey trumps all in the TV lounge

My numbering may be off, Carol. Me, I have standing orders to treat me like The Walking Dead. If rendered a Zombi by stroke or atherosclerosis or too much Silk n Silver for men: apply the proverbial bolt-gun.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, has anyone here planned out their final days? Is anyone planning to be housed in an expensive campus like Glenwood Gardens?

Yes, and and yes. Having spernt a large part of my youth visiting Cargo Facilities, and hearing my youngish and then midde-aged and then old mother extolling the excellences of Lonicera Hall (assisted living) and Lincourt Manor (end of the line, run by her niece)I have always expected to end up in one and then the other, unless I just drop dead unexpectedly. They are both nice places and when I get there. really,what will be important to me?

When you get there, really, what will be immportant to you? Hmmmm. Let me guess.

  • Dinner
  • Lunch
  • Breakfast
  • Snacks
  • Pub Night
  • Shuttlebus to Bingo
  • Bingo
  • Snacks
  • Gossipy 'friends'
  • Bitching about the food
  • Hockey trumps all in the TV lounge
My numbering may be off, Carol. Me, I have standing orders to treat me like The Walking Dead. If rendered a Zombi by stroke or atherosclerosis or too much Silk n Silver for men, apply the proverbial bolt-gun.
You are bang-on. When the time comes I will not be too accurate on the numbering anyway. I assume we share the Lou Grant funerary ethos, "Just stand me in the alley with my hat on".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, I did not mean to get you riled, but none of us have the least fucking idea what went on in that family. And it is absolutely none of our business whether or whatever dodgem games the Baylesses have played. As for you (or me or any crabby autodidact) to say or imply a 'need to see the DNR' ... fiddlesticks.

That said, you chewed off the face (metaphorically) of some DF here who claimed knowledge. I was returing the same bunt. I was not demanding credentials, just wondering what knowlege was assumed in re Lorraine's health and prognosis. As with me, I assumed you knew fuck all about that.

We can now return to our regular programme: NON-stop Moralizing and Posturing. It's the Objectivish thing to do ...

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking of my mom's final moments in my arms. Should I have pulled her onto the floor and banged her about? No. This was death.

+

I am thinking of the same moment with my own mother.She died beside me, in an instant, in the car. Within moments she was in her grandson's arms, getting CPR, but it was death, on the roadside in the fog, and I saw her beautful grey green eyes turned cold agate, turned to cold stone, but I could not believe it and I could not bear to close them.

Yes, you knew with yours as I knew with mine. But strangers know not so they should not/cannot pretend they do. Absent orders, they give CPR if they know CPR or don't if that is their wont. That "nurse" made no reference to LB except respecting her company's orders, first endorsed now questioned by her company. This is the Eichmann attitude and Eichmann defense. She and her company have embraced a real tar baby on this one.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, I did not mean to get you riled, but none of us have the least fucking idea what went on in that family. And it is absolutely none of our business whether or whatever dodgem games the Baylesses have played. As for you (or me or any crabby autodidact) to say or imply a 'need to see the DNR' ... fiddlesticks.

That said, you chewed off the face (metaphorically) of some DF here who claimed knowledge. I was returing the same bunt. I was not demanding credentials, just wondering what knowlege you had of Lorraine's health and prognosis. As with me, I assumed you knew fuck all about that.

We can now return to our regular programme: NON-stop Moralizing and Posturing. It's the Objectivish thing to do ...

I acknowledged I was wrong on that one. The credentials was respecting something else you wrote about how many OLers were doctors, etc.? The Baylesses are now public figures in all this so that's that about that. Now YOU tell ME where in the fuck is that do not res. order? No such order it's all pr bs from them. Let them say there was none, but that they thought the arrangements covered it anyway. That's an ignorance I could respect. They only coughed up half of it.

--Brant

next, round three!

imagine counting on passive response from whomsoever letting your mother die!--it's what mom wanted!--but what if I HAD BEEN THERE?--the medics on arriving gave her CPR!

please cut out that ad h. "Objectivish" crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, you chewed off the face (metaphorically) of some DF here who claimed knowledge. I was returing the same bunt. I was not demanding credentials, just wondering what knowlege you had of Lorraine's health and prognosis. As with me, I assumed you knew fuck all about that.

We can now return to our regular programme: NON-stop Moralizing and Posturing. It's the Objectivish thing to do ...

The credentials was respecting something else you wrote about how many OLers were doctors, etc.?

How many OLers are/were doctors? As far as I can tell, only two, Leonid and, if by a whisker, our new friend from Florida.

If you suspect I added a bit of tongue-lash to my fantasia for those who presume to knowledge, yes. Medical advice to and on the subject of Lorraine Bayless is Five for a Penny when given by spectators like me. I have been cursing myself privately for so rawly saying so much, and so undressed.

(to appeal to the greatest number of readers silent and readers who speak here, I have since my Objectivist Revelation been trying to appeal to reason. Even on some occasions to appeal to Reason. I try to mutually-grope my way to a well-fleshed and credible actuality. Facts. Alert to pretended knowledge and unreasonable suppositions. Fallacies. Unwarranted conclusions. Logics. Consistency. Yadda. Details. Blah. To appeal to the greatest number of people I try to reason first and reason second and reason my way to greater knowledge and understanding. Selfishly, I assume.

Reason. It is what I think is the only thing I share with the thumping majority here who are in some way inspired, enlightened, guided or hogtied by Rand and her derivatives)

I will appeal to your reason and your sense of fairness in two paragraphs, Brant, followed by three paragraphs of corrections and apologies and one paragraph of unanswered questions. Later. Most of these have already appeared.

But first, I have to go look up the differences and connections between domineering and domineer and dominate and dominatrix and dominant.

The Baylesses are now public figures in all this so that's that about that.

I don't know any of their names. I don't know where they live. I know nothing about their crime, or fraud or hair-colour or politics or lawyer. I don't know what they had for dinner last night in Vegas or LA, nor do I know who was fucking who and why and blah. I know they have asked for privacy -- in other words, they choose to say nothing more on the subject of Punish the Witch.

Kardashians they are not.

Now YOU tell ME where in the fuck is that do not res. order? No such order it's all pr bs from them. Let them say there was none, but that they thought the arrangements covered it anyway. That's an ignorance I could respect. They only coughed up half of it.

I get it. What a dope I have been. They only coughed up half of it. That's right. I not only have a right to shame the nameless public figures, but I have a right to the DNS. I subpoena their private medical file, and demand it be delivered to me up here in the grandstand --- on their knees, the lying bastard Baylesses.

Yummy. I think I am going to like this. Reason, with a whip.

imagine counting on passive response from whomsoever letting your mother die!--it's what mom wanted!--but what if I HAD BEEN THERE?

Oh goodness, dear Brant. So much has (I think) hurt you and caused you to doubt yourself in the inner courtroom in and after those early years, as told, and now, with death. You do deserve to blast all and sundry for sins and tergiversations of your years pushed around. And for all the flab and lies and dullardly and herdish inhumanity instantiated by Toomey and Nurse Yup-I-fucked-up-or-Did-I (who will sue for 87 million dollars, as predicted by MSK, as amended by me). All that.

As some drunken fantasy insisted upthread, the Tell-All book will come (as amended by MSK) by the Real Victim.

I think the Baylesses will keep a dignified distance from America's new Death Debate. I think the shame should be reserved for the hypocrisy of Our Slogans Are Shit-IHOP.

In my fantasy, which is coming on fast, all tinkles, we OLers will have continued our researches and arrived at some piercing truths. With respect, Brant, I hold my line that I/we simply cannot judge fairly without a full slate of evidence. Surely not enought to sleaze the Baylesses.

And here too brother, it might be best for others to talk about their own deaths, as you and Carol and I have been forthright enough to do over the years. I respect you for the frank stories you tell, and do not doubt you Would Do the Right Thing in all circumstance.

I have asked far too many questions and made far too many statements already. But this thread will resound with me and I will revisit.

Till then, I wish that other bravefoolish OLers will take the time to tell tales of their deaths, theirs foreseen and planned for, their deaths witnessed and grieved. Take the spotlight off who have told our stories and sketched the contours of our own pain.

I can't, Brant, fully obey you. Not until I am in your home with a glass of your fine spirits in front of me. Yours is the last word now that you know Lorraine Bayless's GP signed the death certificate and it has appeared just today in the news. She died of a stroke, he attested.

...

To the dead, says Hitch. To the dead. Cheers, cheers all. To Death, may You take me unawares. To my lovely Friend Carol, whom I have never yet met, what a moving prose poem of your death, your mother as her eyes turned to glass. Brant, brother OLer, may we meet in actuality.

I suggest rather fantastically that MSK decree an OL Conflab in Chi-town in 2014 or sooner or whenever -- a self-organizing social, a Ball of Reason, an Event. No papers delivered. No formal speeches, no icing on the cake. Just OLers being their passionately reasonable best. As good as if not better than the Kissimmee Konklave of long ago SOLO-RoR.

We could loudly but reasonably finish this skirmish then, brother Brant? I do so want to meet a few lovely cronies like Carol and MSK and Kat and you before we become cargo ourselves.

Link to comment
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