# 2010 Olympics starts out with death!!



## Micro_87 (Feb 12, 2010)

21 year old Nodar Kumaritashvili (Olympic Luge Slider) died today during his practice run.

Graphic Video/Photos:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nodar-kumaritashvili-cras_n_460474.html


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 12, 2010)

Tends to happen when you run in to a steel pole at over 80mph with just a helmet.


Does that part of Canada (or any part) not have determination protocols when it comes to blunt trauma?


----------



## LucidResq (Feb 12, 2010)

Very sad. Kind of hard to see exactly what happens but it looks like he hit high c-spine pretty hard.

Good to see people were at his side immediately and it looks like resuscitation was immediately initiated.


----------



## LucidResq (Feb 12, 2010)

Apparently several other Olympians have made comments about this track being too dangerous, and others have had accidents, including one that knocked an athlete unconscious and had her transported by air to the hospital. 

I hope that they cancel all events for this track. It's unfortunate but it seems inappropriate to continue.


----------



## berkeman (Feb 12, 2010)

Definitely a safety hole in the track design.  Air fences would fix that one hole, but I wonder how many other safety holes there are.  The racers are the best judges of that.


----------



## Micro_87 (Feb 13, 2010)

i just noticed that Vancouver ems doesn't believe in BSI


----------



## MusicMedic (Feb 13, 2010)

Apparently its one of the Fastest Luge tracks in the world.
fastest any one has gone on that track is 95mph
he was going 88mph 

note: the previous record for speed before this track was 86.8 Mph

i agree with berkeman, they should build fences around the corners so they dont fly off like that. 

its a sad way to start off the Olympics, may he rest in peace


----------



## fortsmithman (Feb 13, 2010)

Micro_87 said:


> i just noticed that Vancouver ems doesn't believe in BSI



EMS in Vancouver as well as the rest of the province of British Columbia is run by the province not any municipalities.  I believe the EMS personnel in the end of the video are volunteers and paid staff chosen by the Olympics and not BC Ambulance Service.


----------



## Epi-do (Feb 13, 2010)

What a sad way to start off what is supposed to be a celebration of winter athletics.  My thoughts and prayers go out to all who knew him.

I do know about elsewhere, but the news here felt compelled to show the video multiple times yesterday.  Was that really necessary?  I just don't see the point in showing something like that.  It doesn't really serve any purpose other than to exploit what happened.


----------



## colafdp (Feb 13, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> EMS in Vancouver as well as the rest of the province of British Columbia is run by the province not any municipalities.  I believe the EMS personnel in the end of the video are volunteers and paid staff chosen by the Olympics and not BC Ambulance Service.



Yep, you're right on that one. BCAS is not covering the olympics.


----------



## zmedic (Feb 13, 2010)

As to the calling on scene, there is no way they are going to pronounce an olympic athlete dead on scene, especially when it was as witnessed arrest with immediate CPR. I know they have no chance of coming back from a blunt arrest, but they aren't going to call it in front of the cameras.


----------



## Micro_87 (Feb 13, 2010)

zmedic said:


> As to the calling on scene, there is no way they are going to pronounce an olympic athlete dead on scene, especially when it was as witnessed arrest with immediate CPR. I know they have no chance of coming back from a blunt arrest, but they aren't going to call it in front of the cameras.



They pronounced him at the hospital not on seen.


----------



## Melclin (Feb 13, 2010)

Couple of questions.


-Why on earth is that bloke using a pocket mask?

-How the hell were the press allowed to take/publish such photos?

-I heard they air lifted him out - surely you guys aren't choppering people CPR in progress, are we missing something maybe?


----------



## PotatoMedic (Feb 14, 2010)

BCAS is covering the Olympics.

...The BCAS, which is completely funded by the Canadian government, will be the sole EMS provider for both venues with no need for mutual aid or outside agencies...

http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/olympic-ems-leader-says-let-games-begin


----------



## fortsmithman (Feb 14, 2010)

FireWA1 said:


> BCAS is covering the Olympics.
> 
> ...The BCAS, which is completely funded by the Canadian government, will be the sole EMS provider for both venues with no need for mutual aid or outside agencies...
> 
> http://www.firehouse.com/topics/top-headlines/olympic-ems-leader-says-let-games-begin



BCAS is not an agency of  the Government of Canada.  BCAS is an agency of the Government of British Columbia and is funded by the same.  Firehouse.com got its facts wrong about where BCAS gets its funding.   The EMS volunteers and other paid ems workers are chosen the the local olmpic organizing committee.  As well the pictures of the ems workers involved are not in BCAS uniforms.


----------



## zmedic (Feb 14, 2010)

Also I know if didn't kill him, but that OPA isn't in far enough in the Huffington Post pics. Those pics are another reason to look professional, so you don't have pics of you doing mouth to mask with weird designs shaved in your head.


----------



## karaya (Feb 14, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Couple of questions.
> 
> 
> -How the hell were the press allowed to take/publish such photos?


 
Because there is no law that says they can't.  Canadian privacy tort laws are very similar to the U.S. laws.


----------



## Scout (Feb 14, 2010)

The Pocket mask would likely be down to the "first responder" having one on him or in his bag. They looked like vols(ski Partrol perhaps) that were placed along the track who were then replaced by EMS.

What I found more interesting is pulse chk with gloves. 

Who makes red BVMs?


----------



## LucidResq (Feb 14, 2010)

Melclin said:


> -I heard they air lifted him out - surely you guys aren't choppering people CPR in progress, are we missing something maybe?



We definitely don't do that out here. Again, probably happened because he was an Olympic athlete.


----------



## Melclin (Feb 14, 2010)

zmedic said:


> Also I know if didn't kill him, but that OPA isn't in far enough in the Huffington Post pics. Those pics are another reason to look professional, so you don't have pics of you doing mouth to mask with weird designs shaved in your head.



Yeah but that happens though doesn't it. You take the BVM away for a moment and you knock the OPA a little and replace it again..camera probably just caught it at one of those moments...hopefully.

There are a few pictures where you could call technique into question (BVM use?) but I'm sure its just that they've been caught at funny times or angles. Be interesting to see any footage of the resus effort.



karaya said:


> Because there is no law that says they can't.  Canadian privacy tort laws are very similar to the U.S. laws.



Thats so strange to me. You would never get anything like that in our media. And the authorities, ambos included, would never let the pictures get taken in the first place. I notice though, that one of the pictures showing his eyes has come down since yesterday.



LucidResq said:


> We definitely don't do that out here. Again, probably happened because he was an Olympic athlete.



Ah, so PR excercise. I suppose thats sort of fair enough in a way, at least I can understand from the organiser's perspective why you would just be screaming at the EMS brass to do absolutely everything. 



Scout said:


> The Pocket mask would likely be down to the "first responder" having one on him or in his bag. They looked like vols(ski Partrol perhaps) that were placed along the track who were then replaced by EMS.
> 
> What I found more interesting is pulse chk with gloves.
> 
> Who makes red BVMs?



Fair enough I spose.


----------



## karaya (Feb 14, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Thats so strange to me. You would never get anything like that in our media. And the authorities, ambos included, would never let the pictures get taken in the first place. I notice though, that one of the pictures showing his eyes has come down since yesterday.


 
So, Australia has self appointed censors in spite of the law?  Makes me all the more glad to be an American!


----------



## Melclin (Feb 14, 2010)

karaya said:


> So, Australia has self appointed censors in spite of the law?  Makes me all the more glad to be an American!



Well I'm no expert in these matters but I think its more of a matter of reasonable respect for the dignity and privacy of a person, that exists outside of the bounds of the law. Its perhaps an unfair generalisation, but there does seem to be a bit of an American obsession with legal technicallities- reason, compassion and the "fair go" (as we would call it) be damned.

I think just about everyone here would agree that there isn't really any need to go splashing pictures of the recently dead around the papers, journalists included (a photo of mortally wounded soldier with the intention of publisising the reality of war is a different kettle of fish). From the point of view of an ambo, the press can go bugger themselves if they think they are going to take photos of a patient of mine during a resus effort (And the press and general public would expect nothing else) and I know of many actual ambos (not students like me) who feel identically, and have acted upon those feelings, when memebers of the press get a little upity.

Aside from this (I would have thought) reasonable idea, I'm fairly certain that images like those posted on that link would be illegal for privacy reasons anyway, and I think, although I'm not sure, that we would be required to prevent the press from gaining access to a scene like that. The number one role of bystanders at scenes, it seems, is often to hold up sheets to prevent any more prying eyes than nessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otcL2MRNRrk  --> This is pretty much the extent of the footage that is allowed to air. It makes the point without having to show some poor guys head blown off for his family and friends to have to se beamed around the world constantly. (You'll notice the fact that the FFs are on scene is unusual enough to warrant a question from the news anchor).

Do we not have a responsibility to protect the dignity and privacy of our patients?


----------



## CAOX3 (Feb 14, 2010)

We cant help the general public from taking pictures or video nearly everyone has a cell phone.  We are there for patient care not crowd control.

As far initiating resus. efforts, if he fits the criteria he gets worked if he doesnt well he doesnt.  We dont fly cardiac arrest patients, we rarely fly anyone and we definitly wouldnt put a helicopter crew in jeopardy for someone who isnt viable.

And it is sad that his family and friends will have to relive this horrific event over and over again.


----------



## karaya (Feb 14, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Well I'm no expert in these matters but I think its more of a matter of reasonable respect for the dignity and privacy of a person, that exists outside of the bounds of the law. Its perhaps an unfair generalisation, but there does seem to be a bit of an American obsession with legal technicallities- reason, compassion and the "fair go" (as we would call it) be damned.
> 
> I think just about everyone here would agree that there isn't really any need to go splashing pictures of the recently dead around the papers, journalists included (a photo of mortally wounded soldier with the intention of publisising the reality of war is a different kettle of fish). From the point of view of an ambo, the press can go bugger themselves if they think they are going to take photos of a patient of mine during a resus effort (And the press and general public would expect nothing else) and I know of many actual ambos (not students like me) who feel identically, and have acted upon those feelings, when memebers of the press get a little upity.
> 
> ...


 
I find it fascinating that a "photo of a mortally wounded soldier" is okay to publish so as to show the "reality of war". Would this be because of your ideological thoughts of war? As long as the subject matter endorses your personal convictions of war? Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.

Your comment about our "American obsession legal technicalities..."; yes, its called our Bill of Rights and it's part of our Constitution, something that I and most Americans take very seriously. And contained within our Bill of Rights are some Amendments and in the First Amendment we have the freedom of the press and freedom of assembly among others.

Now the freedom of the press gives us the right to publish and freedom of assembly the right to peaceably gather. On an accident scene, if a photojournalist is behind the yellow tape, so to speak, then he has the right of assembly with others and can photograph whatever he or she wants unencumbered. The freedom of the press, allow his or hers editors to publish the photo without encumbrance.

Ironically, these rights are the very reason we can photograph and print your war example!

You've made a reference, "I'm fairly certain that images like those posted on that link would be illegal for privacy reasons anyway, and I think, although I'm not sure, that we would be required to prevent the press from gaining access to a scene like that." This is completely wrong. One, I can see that you are ignorant of privacy laws here in the States as well as your own country. The image in question does not violate any privacy laws here in the States or in Australia for that matter (yes, I researched your privacy torts). Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that mandates paramedical personal from preventing the press from photographing a patient in a publicly open area. You need to stay focused on patient care and let command worry about who can safely access the area. You are however required to protect the patent's privacy once that patient is moved into area of "expected privacy" such as the back of the ambulance. Make every effort to close the doors from the public and of course the media would be barred from entering the ambulance.

Listen, I can see that you are young and somewhat new to this business and your passion to protect the privacy of the patient is noble. And you should by all means protect the patent's privacy, but within the boundaries of the law. If your were to have me removed from a scene just because I'm a journalist while other civilians are allowed to view the scene, I would be forced to file a civil liberties lawsuit against you for violation of my freedom to gather (this has been done by the media in the past).

The death of the Luge slider was unfortunate and since this was the Olympics, it became a newsworthy event. What I liked about the photograph is that is showed the furious efforts of the first responders to try and save this man's life. Something that is rarely seen by the public - what medics do to try and save others up front.


----------



## Melclin (Feb 15, 2010)

karaya said:


> I find it fascinating that a "photo of a mortally wounded soldier" is okay to publish so as to show the "reality of war". Would this be because of your ideological thoughts of war? As long as the subject matter endorses your personal convictions of war? Sounds a tad hypocritical to me.


 
I was referring to a recent controversy about a photo of a mortally wounded soldier being published (maybe it wasn't quite as large a controversy as I thought). I wasn't making any comment on the legitimacy of either side of the argument in particular, just that saying there were two sides to that story - that is a good example of the good for free journalism/speech vs censorship for the common good and I though both sides had good points. My point then being that I don't think the same sort of argument applies here, because there's no point to publicly showing pictures of an athlete dying that overcomes his right to privacy.



karaya said:


> Your comment about our "American obsession legal technicalities..."; yes, its called our Bill of Rights and it's part of our Constitution, something that I and most Americans take very seriously. And contained within our Bill of Rights are some Amendments and in the First Amendment we have the freedom of the press and freedom of assembly among others....


 
Yes yes I realise all that, but this is what I mean about an _obsession_ with the technicalities, with black and white. Those rules are there to protect the greater good, but it doesn't mean their strict interpretation leads to the best outcome _all _the time, which seems to be the commonly held idea over there. There are exceptions. Videos/literature to incite racial hatred for example are banned despite the fact that it tramples free speech because its commonly held by the majority of society to bring about "anti-social behavior" (I love that term haha)(to avoid confusion again, I'm talking about here, not in the states, I have no idea what the law is there). 



karaya said:


> One, I can see that you are ignorant of privacy laws here in the States as well as your own country. The image in question does not violate any privacy laws here in the States or in Australia for that matter (yes, I researched your privacy torts). Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that mandates paramedical personal from preventing the press from photographing a patient in a publicly open area. You need to stay focused on patient care and let command worry about who can safely access the area. You are however required to protect the patent's privacy once that patient is moved into area of "expected privacy" such as the back of the ambulance. Make every effort to close the doors from the public and of course the media would be barred from entering the ambulance.



I am completely ignorant of your privacy laws, but I wasn't commenting on them.

As for ours, there are many different levels and requirements for privacy that exists in many different forms of legislature and common law, not to mention our contracts with various ambulance services and codes of conduct - I can't imagine you can state for certain that this is the case of all of them having spent a few hours googling. But you may very well be correct, as I said, I don't know for sure. And it may not strictly be a privacy issue, the images may be illegal under censorship laws, or regulations or some other code of conduct of television stations. Maybe the journalists have more taste. But what ever the reason, images like that don't end up on the news here, and I don't see any particularly good reason why they should. 

I'm not sure if the "expected privacy" comment was in reference to your system or my system, but you surely do see how that phrase is open to interpretation. My level of expected privacy (and, it seems, that of most Aussies) would certainly involve some level of protection from cameras whether they be 30cm away trying to get in the door or a mile away with giant telephoto lense. Obviously I'm not going to storm up onto a building a mile away and throw a journalist's camera off the roof, of course actions to that extent would be illegal but we don't necessarily have a law telling us _exactly_ what we can and can't do. Its mostly left up to reasonable judgment, and if its made in good faith, then mostly it doesn't reach the courts. Putting sheets up around an arrest in public is very common and yet strangely society isn't falling apart from this affront to free speech. 

I was physically removed from an non-fatal accident scene (I was actually watching quietly from 20-30 metres away) by police because the paramedics didn't like the fact that I was "gauking". I wasn't that happy, because I was interested in what was going on, but I'll get over it. I don't need to take it to the federal court. The policeman, I suppose you could say, technically assaulted me when he pushed me away rather heavily with no particular reason. I could take him to court and let them decide whether it was assault- but why would I? I'm perfectly happy to call him a wanka and move on. We could jump up and down and scream about my civil rights, but we don't. We just don't have that obsession with litigious technicality. Start herding people into concentration camps and it might be a different matter ( I get the concept of a slippery slope, but lets be reasonable).



> Listen, I can see that you are young and somewhat new to this business and your passion to protect the privacy of the patient is noble. And you should by all means protect the patent's privacy, but within the boundaries of the law. If your were to have me removed from a scene just because I'm a journalist while other civilians are allowed to view the scene, I would be forced to file a civil liberties lawsuit against you for violation of my freedom to gather (this has been done by the media in the past).



Doing all the things I mentioned is certainly within the bounds of the law (although my point during this little essay has been that the line of the law is not as strictly defined, of if it is, its not enforced). Again, this issue of being strictly litigious comes up. You wouldn't be _forced_ to file a law suit. That sort of thing is relatively rare here. As the journalist, you could simply accept that you were being annoying in a sensitive environment and move on, knowing that you wouldn't and shouldn't be able to publish the pictures anyway (Even if you legally could, why would you? Because you are legally allowed too? Again reasonable judgment comes into it - I think most journalists here would agree images like that have little journalistic value [baring any money to be made] in the context of a news paper or broadcast [see my comments about documentaries further down]).

Anyway, my original point was more about being allowed to publish them on the news rather than whether or not they are allowed to take them in the first place (which is a separate issue). I'm sure plenty more gets shot here than is allowed to go to air. At the same time, I don't think it should be banned from view. Its more appropriate for, and indeed I believe it should be part of, expose documentaries etc ( I do think it should be available to view if you really want to). I just don't think the news is the appropriate place for it...its just too public and it comes directly after the event when everyone is still upset.. I'm glad that Australian news outlets feel/are forced to act, the same way.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Feb 15, 2010)

So sad. They don't often have deaths in the Olympics, do they? I cannot think of any in the recent past. Could be wrong.

Thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and team.



Melclin said:


> -I heard they air lifted him out - surely you guys aren't choppering people CPR in progress, are we missing something maybe?


 
Out here, we will not fly cardiac/resp/etc caused full arrests, but we will fly a traumatic arrest. I'm guessing the same thing applies in BC.


----------



## LucidResq (Feb 15, 2010)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Out here, we will not fly cardiac/resp/etc caused full arrests, but we will fly a traumatic arrest. I'm guessing the same thing applies in BC.



What's the rationale behind that considering that traumatic arrests have pretty much a 0.00001% save rate (or something along those lines)? Medical arrests are significantly more likely to survive.


----------



## JPINFV (Feb 15, 2010)

Arguable, some trauma arrests, especially penetrating trauma, can be fixed in the ER (last ditch efforts and all. I'm not suggesting that EM physicians routinely do trauma surgery, but sometimes you have to throw the hail mary). Of course when you're looking at the time needed to arrange a helo and the subsequent transport time, you very quickly leave the window of opportunity.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Feb 16, 2010)

LucidResq said:


> What's the rationale behind that considering that traumatic arrests have pretty much a 0.00001% save rate (or something along those lines)? Medical arrests are significantly more likely to survive.


 
Not really sure.......


----------



## TripsTer (Feb 16, 2010)

Nearly all hospitals around here become furious if you bring in a traumatic code that arrested on-scene.

What a horrible way to die...

He also shares my birthdate too, kinda freaky.


----------



## Shishkabob (Feb 16, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Thats so strange to me. You would never get anything like that in our media. And the authorities, ambos included, would never let the pictures get taken in the first place. I notice though, that one of the pictures showing his eyes has come down since yesterday.



And that's so strange to us in America with freedom of press and freedom of information and all.


Around here if the traumatic arrest is penetrating, it's to be transported if signs of life (and VTach/VFib are considered signs of life) are witnessed.  If no signs of life, or if it's a blunt trauma, it's called on scene.


----------

