# LEO Refuses to do CPR on Child Drowning Victim... Right or Wrong?



## Mountain Res-Q

Surfing the Net and ran across this...
I have mixed feelings on it... what about you?

Mother fights to change CPR Rules
http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=608b22f0d0576986#​
The bases for the article is that this mother is trying to change the policy by which the LEOs in this Department operate when it comes to preforming CPR.  This 2 year old was found in a pool.  Family and friends started CPR, which apparently was not done properly.  LEO arrives on scene first.  Family stops CPR and trys to hand it off to the LEO.  The LEO refuses.  Why?  While the LEOs are trained and certified to do CPR, the policy of the department (and a policy taught to all levels from Lay to CPRO) is that the LEO doesn't have to do CPR unless a barrier device is present; and the department does not provide these to the officers.  The mother contests that the Officer should have performed CPR and if this simple rule is all that prevented him from doing so, that barrier devices should be provided...  A few quotes that I found interesting...

*Eboné Bradford insists that had a Texas City police officer performed CPR on her son when he was found facedown in a backyard pool on June 18, Blake would be blowing out his birthday candles.*

Maybe... maybe not... how long was the child under the water?  What other factors ar not disclosed here?  Could proper CPR really have saved the child?  Possibly it could have increased the chance of survival... but no one can say that CPR by the officer, who probably has no more practical experience than the family, would have saved his life.  Medics were only 4 minutes behind the officer... Did those 4 minutes of ineffective CPR make a difference when the down time is unknown?  Who can say...

*“The person who had it in his power to serve and protect refused.”*

I am unclear as to if part of their duty to "protect and serve" includes medical care...

*On June 18, Blake, his siblings and some neighborhood children were under the care of Bradford’s 19-year-old niece while she was running errands.*

So we blame the Officer and not the mother who left the child... or the 19 y/o that lost the child and did not realize that he was missing and floating in the water?  okay...

*Under the Texas City Police Department’s policy, “plastic mouthpieces or other authorized barrier resuscitation devices shall be used whenever an officer performs CPR or month-to-mouth resuscitation,” Burby said. However, the department does not issue that equipment to its officers and allows an officer to decide whether to perform CPR.*

Such guidlines are preached in every CPR course taught to Lay Responders and Professional Rescuers.  No barrier... your call on if you perform the breathing part of CPR.  However, how common is it for LEOs to be provided with barriers in general?  I never gave it much thought, but what medical gear do LEOs in your area commonly carry? 

However, I am confused... while you can defend his desision to not perform mouth to mouth (I am sure some disagree with this, but still, it can be defended), why not perform compressions?  The article states:

*In his report, Williamson confirmed Bradford and the neighbor stopped CPR and that he had instructed them to continue. The officer reported that when he noticed the procedure was not being done properly and that Bradford was blowing air into the boy’s stomach, he told the mother and another woman how to properly administer CPR.

“Every time Gaines would get a chest compression you could hear the rattle of water,” Williamson wrote in his report. “I could not find a pulse, and he was not breathing."

The officer did not perform CPR.*

So, as the science behind CPR progresses, the focus has shifted to proper compressions over the breathing.  Here, even the officer's report states that they were doing CPR ineffectively... so why not instruct the family/friend to continue breathing (correctly) and take over compressions yourself even if you are affraid of 2 year old boy cooties from mouth to mouth?

*Bradford said, and the officer’s report confirmed, that Williamson got into a shouting match with the boy’s grandmother, who complained the officer wasn’t doing enough to help. 

Mayor Matt Doyle said he would meet with Burby to address the policy, as well as accusations by Bradford that the officer cursed at people as they tried to save the boy.*

So, yes there is no excuse for any public servent getting into a shouting/name calling battle with anyone, especially someone who is understandably distraught over something like this...

*“It angers me a lot that Blake could have been saved,” she said. “I hope to bring awareness so other parents don’t have to suffer what I have.”*

Again... did it change the outcome... we will never know with 100% certainty... but...  I agree with the premise behind the mother's campaign.  She wants to see to it that all local LEOs are trained and equipped to do CPR.  I agree that this is a good idea in general, but even with the training and equipment, will LEOs who do not carry the primmary resposibility to provide medical care really provide better CPR than Joe Blow?  How many average everyday people worldwide get such training and fail to do so properly when the time comes...

However, in this case (the arguing aside) the officer did nothing wrong legally unless you factor in the fact that he failed to do compressions (which does not need a barrier past the use of gloves which most LEOs have, I believe).  Morally and ethically in this case...  I couldn't stand by and watch this kid die.  I would have to do something so that I was left with the knowledge that I did everything I could, even if that is just compressions...  but that is on him...

Thoughts?


----------



## High Speed Chaser

As far as I'm aware LEOs carry first aid kits and if they don't, they should. They just need basic stuff that can help until EMTs arrive. This should include personal barriers to protect officers while administering CPR. While I can understand the officer not wanting to risk his health, that still doesn't mean he couldn't do chest compressions and at least get a family member to continue rescue breaths. Morally he did wrong and I think that the policy needs to be changed to mandate performing CPR and include the issuing of first aid equipment to all LEOs so that both officers and the community are protected in the future.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q

High Speed Chaser said:


> As far as I'm aware LEOs carry first aid kits



Are you speaking about in your area?  Or worldwide?  that is kind of a general statement to make.



High Speed Chaser said:


> While I can understand the officer not wanting to risk his health, that still doesn't mean he couldn't do chest compressions and at least get a family member to continue rescue breaths.



I agree...



High Speed Chaser said:


> Morally he did wrong and I think that the policy needs to be changed to mandate performing CPR and include the issuing of first aid equipment to all LEOs so that both officers and the community are protected in the future.



Hard to judge another person on moral grounds.  The policy was that he didn't have to do mouth to mouth without a barrier... that is a policy that should not be changed, otherwise you are mandating that someone do something that has the potential to be medically harmful to themselves.  That is dangerous; otherwise, where does it end?  Do we change the laws so that everyone Lay Rescue who gets a FA/CPR card from the Red Cross MUST provide care to others?

However, if all LEOs were provided with the proper tools to do so, than the policy becomes pointless as the LEOs (at least in CA) already have the legal requirement to maintain Title 22 First Aid (16 hours) and Professional CPR (8 Hours).  But remember, NO ONE (not even EMTs, Medics, Nurses, or Doctors) is mandated to provide CPR (or any other medical care) if not properly equipped to do so.  The Officer followed the law and policy in this regard, and has to make his own choices ethically and morally, two subjects where your opinion as to right and wrong can not be impossed on another (even in areas where right and wrong might seem obvious to you or me)...


----------



## High Speed Chaser

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Are you speaking about in your area?  Or worldwide?  that is kind of a general statement to make.


I know some states (at least in Australia) such as New South Wales have a





			
				[FONT=Arial said:
			
		

> source: [/FONT]http://www.policensw.com/info/road/t1.html] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]first aid kit: Laederal face mask with one way                   valve
> [/FONT]







Mountain Res-Q said:


> Hard to judge another person on moral grounds.  The policy was that he didn't have to do mouth to mouth without a barrier... that is a policy that should not be changed, otherwise you are mandating that someone do something that has the potential to be medically harmful to themselves.  That is dangerous; otherwise, where does it end?


 Sorry I meant that a policy change should be made to ensure all PD cars are equipped with a first aid kits, Even if it's just a basic small kit in the boot. 

Just curious but is it better to do chest compressions then to do nothing?



Mountain Res-Q said:


> Do we change the laws so that everyone Lay Rescue who gets a FA/CPR card from the Red Cross MUST provide care to others?


No, unless they are required to do so for there job (Emergency Services) and they are on duty.



Mountain Res-Q said:


> However, if all LEOs were provided with the proper tools to do so, than the policy becomes pointless as the LEOs (at least in CA) already have the legal requirement to maintain Title 22 First Aid (16 hours) and Professional CPR (8 Hours).  But remember, NO ONE (not even EMTs, Medics, Nurses, or Doctors) is mandated to provide CPR (or any other medical care) if not properly equipped to do so.


However my point is that people on the front lines who are on duty and have the training should be equipped to do so they are more inclined to commence CPR. At least if not and gloves are on, I don't see what is wrong by starting compressions. 



Mountain Res-Q said:


> The Officer followed the law and policy in this regard, and has to make his own choices ethically and morally, two subjects where your opinion as to right and wrong can not be impossed on another (even in areas where right and wrong might seem obvious to you or me)...


  Your right but there were things I think he could have done as the bare minimum such as at least instruct and assist the members in CPR but that's my opinion.

I admit I was very hesitant to perform rescue breaths on some one (lucky I never needed to), but I feel much more comfortable now that my organisation has given me a pocket mask and trained me in the use of the BVM.

My main point of my posts is that all emergency service vehicles should be equipped with at the least basic first aid kits which contain barriers.


----------



## MRE

Our LEOs have a first aid kit and O2 in the town PD SUV.  Usually, an EMT who beats the ambulance to a scene will end up using these supplies, but the cops have been known to apply them as well.


----------



## ki4mus

All our county cops carry BLS jumpkits in their trunks.....but even if you are in an area that doesn't have any real first aid supplies, but you are required to be trained in CPR, and have a policy that says you need a mask....then how hard is it to provide a simple pocket face mask (even the key chain version would work!!!)


----------



## akflightmedic

Two questions and again it goes back to my soap box topic:

Shouldn't "WE" as parents be fully trained in CPR?

Isn't it OUR responsibility to ensure we have all the necessary, available tools to perform the job to the best of our ability?

Personal responsibility and accountability...another case of someone trying to pass the buck because they suffered a loss due to certain controls within their ability not taking place. They wish to shift the hurt(responsibility)onto someone else. If they can blame someone else they can deal with their grief.

Since when did it become a police officer's duty to show up and do this...yes it happens, but it is not typically their role.

I say again, take some personal responsibility for your own actions or inactions.


----------



## JCampbell

I can't really say whether he was right or wrong, I wasn't there, but I can say I'm sure I would have done everything in my power to resuscitate the child until medics AOS...Policy or not, barrier or not, I wouldn't want to think for the rest of my life "Could I have done more? Why was I such a ****? WTF was wrong with me back then? How old would the child be this year?....."


----------



## akflightmedic

JCampbell said:


> I can't really say whether he was right or wrong, I wasn't there, but I can say I'm sure I would have done everything in my power to resuscitate the child until medics AOS...Policy or not, barrier or not, I wouldn't want to think for the rest of my life "Could I have done more? Why was I such a ****? WTF was wrong with me back then? How old would the child be this year?....."



And if it was a 30 year old father....

or a 53 year old grandmother...

or a 82 year old man....

What if the above were not "normal" looking? What if the child had cystic fibrosis? Would any of those factors make a difference in how you would have handled the scene?

Where do you draw the line? Are you implying you would go above and beyond only because it is a pediatric?

All the others are someone's family too, they are loved, will be missed, will possibly have years ahead of them to do many good things...where do you draw the line?


----------



## reaper

JCampbell said:


> I can't really say whether he was right or wrong, I wasn't there, but I can say I'm sure I would have done everything in my power to resuscitate the child until medics AOS...Policy or not, barrier or not, I wouldn't want to think for the rest of my life "Could I have done more? Why was I such a ****? WTF was wrong with me back then? How old would the child be this year?....."



What if the family informed you the child had Hep c or TB. Would you still preform your duty?


----------



## JCampbell

There are a LOT of "what-ifs".  But since this is an actual patient and not a hypothetical one I think the only "what-if" that I would be concerned about is "what if I had done more?" .  The difference btw to me between an adult and a child is that the adult has had time to live his life and bear children, make a mark in the world, etc...a child has not had that yet, and since that's pretty much what life's all about I personally feel that a child's life is more precious. Sometimes that means going above and beyond policies, up to and including placing myself in harms way.  That's MY policy. I don't expect or require anyone else to follow it. At the end of the day I'm the one who has to live with the consequences. In my world it's always better to try and fail than never try at all, especially if that reason really was because of a little piece of plastic that wasn't between me and a childs mouth.


----------



## Cory

All police in this country are supposed to carry a rescue mask, some are also required to carry an AED

This is rediculous and the officer should be charged with neglegence.


----------



## akflightmedic

First, I still fail to see why no one else places any responsibility on the parents.

Am I the only one who feels this way? When I had kids, you know what I did? I taught everyone who would be around my kids CPR, inlaws, parents, cousins, anyone who wanted to learn.

As a parent, it is OUR responsibility to take care of our kids and our families. If we need MEDICAL assistance, that comes from the medical professionals (EMS, Doctor, Nurse)...I do NOT expect it to ever come from a LAW enforcement professional.

Why are we putting the blame on the officer? He has every right to choose NOT to provide medical assistance. Just because he is trained to deal with emergencies of a criminal nature does not mean he is just as adept at handling medical emergencies.

Yes there are a lot of "what ifs" and you may not have the answer to those such as what Reaper posed and you did not address. 

Cory..Please show me the Federal Statute which requires ALL police officers in this country to carry a rescue mask. That is one hell of a law to cross so many jurisdictions...

Also, please prove to me how this "ridiculous" officer is guilty of negligence.


----------



## reaper

Do you wear gloves at work? Do you do mouth to mouth on your Pt's?

I am guessing, NO. The reason is that you do not want to take the risk of infections, that can be taken home to love ones.

You could pass TB on to your family. You could contract Hep C and die from it. Then your family is left alone. All for a stranger? Not me.

Yes, I would have did compressions, but the family would be doing rescue breaths!


----------



## Cory

reaper said:


> Do you wear gloves at work? Do you do mouth to mouth on your Pt's?
> 
> I am guessing, NO. The reason is that you do not want to take the risk of infections, that can be taken home to love ones.
> 
> You could pass TB on to your family. You could contract Hep C and die from it. Then your family is left alone. All for a stranger? Not me.
> 
> Yes, I would have did compressions, but the family would be doing rescue breaths!



Again, police are suopposed to carry rescue masks.


----------



## reaper

Cory said:


> Again, police are suopposed to carry rescue masks.



Umm, NO they are not required to! Some have policies for it, but not required by law. AED? That is a joke. Most PD's do not carry AED's.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life

Cory said:


> Again, police are suopposed to carry rescue masks.


edited


----------



## EMSLaw

If the officer was dispatched to an emergency, had the training to help, and did not, then shame on him.  The reason police are often dispatched to "medical calls" in the first place is that they are usually closer, and usually trained in potentially life-saving interventions like CPR.

I'd like to think that most police officers I know would do everything in their power and more to save the life of a child - the same, by the way, goes for EMS and Fire as well.  We may tell ourselves that all lives have meaning, but when the call goes out for an injured child, you can see the difference in reaction.  It's outrageous that anyone would stand there and tell parents, "I'm not going to help your child at all."

The parents have a responsiblity for keeping their children safe, yes.  But coming upon the scene where the accident has already happened, that is no time to make value judgments about how good a parent someone is.  You treat the patient in front of you.


----------



## akflightmedic

EMSLaw said:


> If the officer was dispatched to an emergency, had the training to help, and did not, then shame on him.  The reason police are often dispatched to "medical calls" in the first place is that they are usually closer, and usually trained in potentially life-saving interventions like CPR.
> 
> I'd like to think that most police officers I know would do everything in their power and more to save the life of a child - the same, by the way, goes for EMS and Fire as well.  We may tell ourselves that all lives have meaning, but when the call goes out for an injured child, you can see the difference in reaction.  It's outrageous that anyone would stand there and tell parents, "I'm not going to help your child at all."
> 
> The parents have a responsiblity for keeping their children safe, yes.  But coming upon the scene where the accident has already happened, that is no time to make value judgments about how good a parent someone is.  You treat the patient in front of you.



You treat the patient...to an officer it is not a "patient".

I am not saying pass value judgments...I am saying the officer needs to stop being blamed when the parents are just as responsible. No one takes personal accountability these days, they always want to blame someone else, thereby keeping people such as yourself gainfully employed.


----------



## EMSLaw

akflightmedic said:


> You treat the patient...to an officer it is not a "patient".
> 
> I am not saying pass value judgments...I am saying the officer needs to stop being blamed when the parents are just as responsible. No one takes personal accountability these days, they always want to blame someone else, thereby keeping people such as yourself gainfully employed.



Oh, I don't disagree.  Most of what I do involves defending lawsuits brought by those least-accountable of people, prison inmates.  

But as far as the original post goes - do we know if the officer was a first responder or had other medical training?  He certainly had CPR.  I doubt he was sent to the scene to do crowd control.  I don't think he's to blame for the child's death, but I can't agree with his decision not to help, and I think (now I will make a value judgment.  ) that he bears a certain level of moral responsiblity.


----------



## Sasha

EMSLaw said:


> If the officer was dispatched to an emergency, had the training to help, and did not, then shame on him.  The reason police are often dispatched to "medical calls" in the first place is that they are usually closer, and usually trained in potentially life-saving interventions like CPR.
> 
> I'd like to think that most police officers I know would do everything in their power and more to save the life of a child - the same, by the way, goes for EMS and Fire as well.  We may tell ourselves that all lives have meaning, but when the call goes out for an injured child, you can see the difference in reaction.  It's outrageous that anyone would stand there and tell parents, "I'm not going to help your child at all."
> 
> The parents have a responsiblity for keeping their children safe, yes.  But coming upon the scene where the accident has already happened, that is no time to make value judgments about how good a parent someone is.  You treat the patient in front of you.



An first responder, be it police, fire, ems, has the duty to go home to their family, safe and sound without brining along an icky that can kill them or spread to their families. Reaper is right, the kid could have had an icky. I would NOT do CPR with out a face mask. Plain and simple. I am not going to make myself sick for a child or adult who is already dying/dead.


----------



## Sasha

Cory said:


> All police in this country are supposed to carry a rescue mask, some are also required to carry an AED
> 
> This is rediculous and the officer should be charged with neglegence.



You got a source for that? Because in the article it says 



> Under the Texas City Police Department’s policy, “plastic mouthpieces or other authorized barrier resuscitation devices shall be used whenever an officer performs CPR or month-to-mouth resuscitation,” Burby said. However, *the department does not issue that equipment to its officers and allows an officer to decide whether to perform CPR*.



When something is required, they are provided by the department. It also states an officer is allowed to decide. To be charged with negligence there has to be a duty to act that the officer breeched. If he is not required to, by law, then he was not negligent.


----------



## amberdt03

reaper said:


> *Do you wear gloves at work?* Do you do mouth to mouth on your Pt's?
> 
> *I am guessing, NO*. The reason is that you do not want to take the risk of infections, that can be taken home to love ones.
> 
> You could pass TB on to your family. You could contract Hep C and die from it. Then your family is left alone. All for a stranger? Not me.
> 
> Yes, I would have did compressions, but the family would be doing rescue breaths!



heck yeah i wear gloves at work.....i think the fault comes down on who was suppose to be watching the kids, whether it was the parent or the neighbor.


----------



## reaper

Could catch. I worded that wrong!


----------



## amberdt03

reaper said:


> Could catch. I worded that wrong!



i figured....still had to give you a hard time though


----------



## Mountain Res-Q

Cory said:


> All police in this country are supposed to carry a rescue mask, some are also required to carry an AED



"Supposed to"?  "Required to"?  Care to cite some sources for this information?



Cory said:


> This is ridiculous and the officer should be charged with negligence.



Do you know what the word "negligence” means?  In order for someone to medically be charged with negligence you have to prove a duty to act and a violation or departure from what was medically reasonable for that person to do (i.e. would every other person with the same level of training and with the same job description have done the same thing)?

He was following policies and his training in what he did, although some might disagree with his decision to follow that policy.  The policy is not just some thing written on paper haphazardly.  EVERYONE is taught (regardless of level of training; from Mommy getting Lay CPR Cert from ARC to the Trauma Room Docs) that you have no responsibility to provide medical care in a situation where you are not properly equipped to do so.  No Mask?  There is a danger to your health that is possible.  Safety comes first and you are within your legal rights to say, “NO”.  

Please explain how he was legally negligent.  



EMSLaw said:


> If the officer was dispatched to an emergency, had the training to help,* had the responsibility legally to help, was equipped to help, *and did not, then shame on him.



There… fixed it for ya.



JCampbell said:


> There are a LOT of "what-ifs".  But since this is an actual patient and not a hypothetical one I think the only "what-if" that I would be concerned about is "what if I had done more?" .  The difference btw to me between an adult and a child is that the adult has had time to live his life and bear children, make a mark in the world, etc...a child has not had that yet, and since that's pretty much what life's all about I personally feel that a child's life is more precious. Sometimes that means going above and beyond policies, up to and including placing myself in harms way.  That's MY policy. I don't expect or require anyone else to follow it. At the end of the day I'm the one who has to live with the consequences. In my world it's always better to try and fail than never try at all, especially if that reason really was because of a little piece of plastic that wasn't between me and a child’s mouth.



I sure am glad that our training qualifies us to pass judgment on others and decide who is deserving of going above and beyond the call of duty.  

When you put on the uniform you accept a responsibility to help everyone you are called upon to… equally.  You don’t  personally know these people, so how can you say who deserves for you to provide better care or to violate protocols because of who you perceive them to be?

The 30 y/o you refuse to do mouth to mouth on because of cooties could have been the guy that cures cancer in 20 years.  The child you do mouth to mouth on could grow up to be the next Stalin (will not go German because of Godwin’s Law).  We should not be thinking about those possible future realities while performing our duties, any more than we should be thinking about our perceived reality presented to us.  Child, drunk transient, soccer mom, junkie, theoretical physicist, EMT, Trauma Surgeon…. When we roll up to help those classifications are meaningless, they are human beings that deserve the same level of care and diligence across the board…  

We talk about the LEOs moral and ethical resposibilities to help... what about our moral and ethical to not pass judgement and provide a consistant standard of care?


----------



## Summit

If you train your officer to do CPR and don't provide the simplest and cheapest of supplies to allow him to actually do CPR safely... then you are a moron.


----------



## reaper

:beerchug:BRAVO:beerchug::beerchug:


----------



## ki4mus

reaper said:


> Umm, NO they are not required to! Some have policies for it, but not required by law. AED? That is a joke. Most PD's do not carry AED's.



ours carry full jump kits and a Zoll 1600...

If the LEO is being dispatched to a medical problem then they should be trained and equiped to handle it at lest till EMS arrive....and quite frankly any public safty officer that isn't certified in CPR and ready to preform first aid is pointless...


----------



## kittaypie

ok... this child was down for how long before someone noticed and called 911?

and the family was doing CPR while the LEO coached them:
*"The officer reported that when he noticed the procedure was not being done properly and that Bradford was blowing air into the boy’s stomach, he told the mother and another woman how to properly administer CPR."*

so it wasn't like he was just standing there and twiddling his thumbs. 

morally, he should've stepped in. legally, he didn't have to. and who's to say his CPR would've been more effective than the family's? yes, he may be certified but how many times has he done CPR on an actual infant? i'm betting he wouldn't have been much help.

plus, the paramedics were there 4 minutes after him. the child was pronounced dead an hour later at the hospital. if they pronounced him that quickly, chances are he was way beyond saving. and 4 minutes (especially since CPR was being performed during that 4 minutes) would have had little effect on the outcome. 

the mother needs to understand that it was nobody's FAULT (at least EMS-wise) the kid died. that's great it makes her feel better about coping with the death but she shouldn't be publicly blaming people for it.

i'm all for improving CPR administration and training for LEOs. that would be very useful in many cases. how many times have you shown up on a full arrest and there's already a LEO on scene? it would be awesome if he/she was in there doing CPR and setting up an AED.

also, how come pool safety isn't an issue being talked about? this whole thing wouldn't have even happened if the child hadn't drowned in the first place. there needs to be more emphasis on fencing around pools and educating parents about preventing drowning.

for this particular incident, i'm not blaming the LEO. let's say a LEO witnesses an arrest and doesn't do anything about it for about 10 minutes until paramedics got there... yeah i'd be pissed if i were the family. his actions could possibly have saved the patient. but not in this drowning case. it's just a tragedy.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q

So... since there seems to be a prevalence in America of people trying to find blame for “**it happens” tragedies and since most people like to assign blame to those who fail to live up to their expectations (expectations that might not be realistic) while pardoning those who had the primary responsibility to “protect and serve” (like Mommy)…  How about we assign some numbers to this…  What numbers do you insert here?

In this situation, the blame rests…

__% with the Officer for following policy and making his own moral/ethical choice
__% with the CPR Policy of “No Mask… NO CPR”
__% with the Police Dept. for failing to provide the Officer with Pocket Masks
__% with the Mother who had accepted the responsibilities of parenthood
__% with the Teenage Babysitter who failed to watch over the child
__% with the Child for not being a smarter 2 year old
__% with Obama for failing to hold a “Milk Bottle Summit” and settle the issue


----------



## Sasha

Sounds like the 19 year old had too much on her hands. Victim, sibling*s* of the victim and some neighborhood children.. sounds like a lot of kids for a young woman who had things to get done.


----------



## reaper

Mountain Res-Q said:


> So... since there seems to be a prevalence in America of people trying to find blame for “**it happens” events and since most people like to assign blame to those who fail to live up to their expectations; expectations that might not be realistic) while pardoning those who had the primary responsibility to “protect and serve”…  How about we assign some numbers to this…  What numbers do you insert here?
> 
> In this situation, the blame rests…
> 
> _1_% with the Officer for following policy and making his own moral/ethical choice
> _0_% with the CPR Policy of “No Mask… NO CPR”
> _10_% with the Police Dept. for failing to provide the Officer with Pocket Masks
> _30_% with the Mother who had accepted the responsibilities of parenthood
> _40_% with the Teenage Babysitter who failed to watch over the child
> _1_% with the Child for not being a smarter 2 year old
> _18_% with President Obama for failing to hold a “Milk Bottle Summit” and settle the issue



That sounds about right!


----------



## Sasha

> there needs to be more emphasis on fencing around pools and educating parents about preventing drowning.



Like teaching children how to swim. One adult and two teenage girls drown recently around here(http://www.wesh.com/news/21319838/detail.html)... in this day and age with pools everywhere it is down right idiotic not to teach a child how to swim.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life

Sasha said:


> Like teaching children how to swim. One adult and two teenage girls drown recently around here(http://www.wesh.com/news/21319838/detail.html)... in this day and age with pools everywhere it is down right idiotic not to teach a child how to swim.


an alarming amount of adults have no idea how to swim. or float for that matter


----------



## akflightmedic

We all float....eventually.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life

akflightmedic said:


> We all float....eventually.


haha. thats true. anyone  gets that bloated their going to float


----------



## Cory

Lifeguards For Life said:


> edited



I didn't edit it because of that, I edited it immediately after posting <_<

...if I am not mistaken, this forum has community leaders to pass judgement on people, not you


----------



## Aidey

Where I am the LEOs are not allowed to provide medical care, period. I'm not sure if they carry barrier devices or not, but I know that they can't give a person a bandaid, or put some gauze on a wound. They technically do have gloves, because they have them for touching icky things and searching people, however the dept policy is no medical treatment. 

What happens instead is that the PD call the FD who go out and give the guy a once over and determine if PD can haul them off to jail or if the guy needs stitches or advanced cleaning or whatever.

My personal policy is that if I wouldn't kiss you under normal circumstances, I wouldn't give you mouth to mouth without a barrier device.


----------



## Sasha

Lifeguards For Life said:


> an alarming amount of adults have no idea how to swim. or float for that matter



I am absolutely amazed everytime I meet a floridian who can't swim. With lakes, ponds, pools, fountains, oceans, water parks, swamps, and the floods we get you would think that everyone would learn how to swim.


----------



## firemedic1563

akflightmedic said:


> You treat the patient...to an officer it is not a "patient".



I disagree, at least in the case of my state. Also, here it is LAW that they provide care. At least in the vast majority of cases, as most of our police officers are certified by the state as First Responders. As such, the law specifically requires them to perform care when on duty "in accordance with the First Responder curriculum approved by the EMS Board". They are an EMS provider.

Many of our county officers, as well as many of the officers all over our state carry AED's. I have watched the security video of officers saving a county facilities worker in the police station using one(he is back to work). Also, one of our county officers had two saves using an AED within a 24 hour period (both neurolgically intact). 

My point is that in cases where they are trained providers, even if not mandated to act, they have a moral and ethical obligation to. Did this officer violate any law? It seems not. I'd say the community/department is just as much to blame for not providing a $5 barrier device! The fact is in most areas the police are often closer than EMS.


----------



## akflightmedic

If you are going to quote me, quote the entire message so it is not out of context. My statement you highlighted was in direct response to the person I quoted in my original statement.

The officer mentality does not think in patient terms. He thinks victim and perp and law enforcement.

Initially, the officer is not thinking this is a patient and as such he may need a kickstart to get in gear and assist or he may freeze as typically officers are not routinely put in positions where they must render care as solo provider on scene.

I also still standby the blame lying with the family and not the officer.

As requested previously, link me to any "LAW" if it is going to be quoted as a basis for fact. Sorry but your words are not enough, nothing personal.

And finally, I see you are dictating morals and ethics...lot of power you wield cause last time I checked, I didn't think anyone could say when I personally have a moral or ethical obligation other than myself. 

I do not disagree that officers are usually closer and already mobile, I have worked in a county where officers responded to almost every single call and they all had AEDs.

What I disagree with is the claim the officer is at fault or to blame. He is not a medical provider, he is a police officer and they usually have the oath of to serve and protect. I think they also should serve and protect themselves in certain situations and if he determined this to be one, then so be it as he did not violate any law...


----------



## Trauma's Mistress

I was agreeing  with everything  in the   first post on this  story.  the one where the  synopsis of the story was. I am reading thinking ot my self,   ehh  thats a good point too.  I get the rule , I think its  stupid, but I get the rule.  I  say its stupid, not to belittle  the rule , or the people who follow it, I am just saying. if  I have a child in front of me, and he lives or  dies if I do or dont do something,even if the off chance I might  catch something from it,. I will still do it.  What are  the   chances  the  kid has aids? Not saying it isnt possible.   The  entire  article. I was  saying. Ohh thats a good point,  ooooo what a gray area,,, i dont know  ...    etc etc  ... 
   Until  I got to the  point  where it  said   the LEO checked for a pulse.  Im  sorry but  If you are checking to see if their is a pulse,  it is my most humble and yes  professional one that you continue.  I agree,  where was the mom watching?  Why wasnt a device   made available if thats the rule,  I am pretty sure    PO's  have  first aid kits aswell.  I am  pretty sure that they know  what to do. 

 This all boils down to - why he didn't, and from  reading  everything on here, the only person who can honestly  answer that is  him.   I am all about the underlying causes to things, so i hate to be mean, but really.  where was the mother.  the  law enforcement   cant be responsible if you dont want your kid, and then B  and C  wouldn't have happened.  Its a latin saying that  goes -- post Hoc Eergo Propter  Hoc.  It means  ...  "after this, therefore because (on account) of this"  The simple  rule goes like this - 

 A occurred,  Then B occurred    
 Therefore - A Caused B 
  which   then led to C  


 The thing with this , is that  they say its true- in the case of the mother,  she says  a + b = C  but   what she is failing to see in this  argument , is that sometimes, if we look closer at  A ( her watching the child more VS not watching the child -  maybe B  wouldnt have happened (kid in pool)  and  C  wouldn't have occurs  (  officer in the position,kid dying)  It is  called the undesired formula  and it goes like  --   If C is  undesired, we look at the  problem as -   Avoiding A  -  will prevent B  which will prevent ultimately C  


  So all in all the mother should have been more careful but  putting  that aside, sinse  we nor  her  can go back in time. we are now at the present. you have a kid  infront of you, not  breathing,I say you do cpr, especially if   they are doing it wrong,  Again, the only person who has to answer to himself for not doing cpr  is the  LEO.  
 Me ?


----------



## Trauma's Mistress

Mountain Res-Q said:


> So... since there seems to be a prevalence in America of people trying to find blame for “**it happens” tragedies and since most people like to assign blame to those who fail to live up to their expectations (expectations that might not be realistic) while pardoning those who had the primary responsibility to “protect and serve” (like Mommy)…  How about we assign some numbers to this…  What numbers do you insert here?
> 
> In this situation, the blame rests…
> 
> __% with the Officer for following policy and making his own moral/ethical choice
> __% with the CPR Policy of “No Mask… NO CPR”
> __% with the Police Dept. for failing to provide the Officer with Pocket Masks
> __% with the Mother who had accepted the responsibilities of parenthood
> __% with the Teenage Babysitter who failed to watch over the child
> __% with the Child for not being a smarter 2 year old
> __% with Obama for failing to hold a “Milk Bottle Summit” and settle the issue



 LMFAO !!   i am really into politics and    the  Milk summit made me almost pee my pants ! hahahahaha   awesome job.


----------



## Trauma's Mistress

Mountain Res-Q said:


> "Supposed to"?  "Required to"?  Care to cite some sources for this information?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "negligence” means?  In order for someone to medically be charged with negligence you have to prove a duty to act and a violation or departure from what was medically reasonable for that person to do (i.e. would every other person with the same level of training and with the same job description have done the same thing)?
> 
> He was following policies and his training in what he did, although some might disagree with his decision to follow that policy.  The policy is not just some thing written on paper haphazardly.  EVERYONE is taught (regardless of level of training; from Mommy getting Lay CPR Cert from ARC to the Trauma Room Docs) that you have no responsibility to provide medical care in a situation where you are not properly equipped to do so.  No Mask?  There is a danger to your health that is possible.  Safety comes first and you are within your legal rights to say, “NO”.
> 
> Please explain how he was legally negligent.
> 
> 
> 
> There… fixed it for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure am glad that our training qualifies us to pass judgment on others and decide who is deserving of going above and beyond the call of duty.
> 
> When you put on the uniform you accept a responsibility to help everyone you are called upon to… equally.  You don’t  personally know these people, so how can you say who deserves for you to provide better care or to violate protocols because of who you perceive them to be?
> 
> The 30 y/o you refuse to do mouth to mouth on because of cooties could have been the guy that cures cancer in 20 years.  The child you do mouth to mouth on could grow up to be the next Stalin (will not go German because of Godwin’s Law).  We should not be thinking about those possible future realities while performing our duties, any more than we should be thinking about our perceived reality presented to us.  Child, drunk transient, soccer mom, junkie, theoretical physicist, EMT, Trauma Surgeon…. When we roll up to help those classifications are meaningless, they are human beings that deserve the same level of care and diligence across the board…
> 
> We talk about the LEOs moral and ethical resposibilities to help... what about our moral and ethical to not pass judgement and provide a consistant standard of care?




  What  he  said.      I  couldnt agree more. 
 The problem with picking and choosing who we help/dont help    as listed by some examples above isnt  the  choices that we make. Its where do we draw the line ?


----------



## medichopeful

In my town, the police (or at least some of them) carry AEDs, and though I haven't seen them, I would assume they have a CPR mask as well.  Come to think of it actually, they may have a first aid kit in back with a CPR mask and other things.  I seem to recall seeing a first aid kit when I did a ride-along with them.


----------



## DrParasite

in many urban areas, PD does not do CPR.  they don't carry AEDs, they don't do first responding.  sometimes they still go to EMS calls.  in fact, speaking from personal experience, I have been giving CPR instructions to a caller for a cardiac arrest over the phone (single person) and when PD arrived, they did not take over, they just said "EMS will be here soon."

child drowning gives people tunnel vision and hero complexes.  do whatever is needed to save the life.  ok, so what about the 40 year old guy who just drops?  or 50 year old father of 3?  why would you not go all out to save them too?

the department should have provided masks if they expect their officers to do CPR.  plain and simple.  they should be given the proper tools to do the job.  if not, then the department is at fault. properly equip the people to do the job.  equipment and training must go hand in hand.

as must as the officer is probably being crucified by the court of public opinion, I don't find his actions wrong for someone who lacks the necessary tools to do the job safely.


----------



## firemedic1563

Sorry I did not post the second paragraph AK, was not trying to misrepresnt your views. My point is that in some cases, such as in this state, they are required by LAW to provide care to their level of training. Since my word means nothing here you go:

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=30.02.03.01.htm

That is our state law, specifically the section that dictates our medical providers. See B.(2) and B.(3) which pretty clearly spells out the duties of a First Responder. 

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=12.04.01.09.htm

This one specifies training for all police officers. Specifically see E.(7). the certification approved is First Responder.

http://www.miemss.org/home/Portals/0/Docs/EducationCert/First_Responder.pdf

Finally the state requirements for First Responder certification.


----------



## firemedic1563

I will concur however that in this case, it does not appear that this officer broke any law or violated any policy. It was his call, and quite possibly appropriate to have other bystanders continue care while he managed the scene


----------



## akflightmedic

I appreciate you doing this.

The first two links do not work for me.

Saying "your word is not good enough" is not a personal attack on you, it is simple forum etiquette that if one says something is a certain way and references a law, study, anything that is factual based...then they should provide the link for credibility.

No one gets a free pass on that one and what it does for all of us is it educates us more when we take the time to read your links, the reader is more inclined to focus on your future posts (especially after fact checking and realizing you are often right), and overall it is the more healthy, proper scientific approach when presenting your side.


----------



## firemedic1563

No problem, no offense taken or intended. The links are not working for me either, not sure why. Do a search for COMAR which will find the website to view our state laws in entirety, then you can view Title 12 (section 9) which deals with Police training. Title 30 deals with medical services (30.02.02). Hope that helps.


----------



## Cory

Well even if they don't, they should carry small first aid kits and at be trained in CPR. I'm surprised police academy doesn't cover that.


----------



## ffemt8978

Cory said:


> Well even if they don't, they should carry small first aid kits and at be trained in CPR. I'm surprised police academy doesn't cover that.



Some police academies actually certify the officer as first responder, so they are certified when the leave the academy.  However, most officers don't do the required CME to maintain the certification, so they let it lapse.  It varies by region.



firemedic1563 said:


> I will concur however that in this case, it does not appear that this officer broke any law or violated any policy. It was his call, and quite possibly appropriate to have other bystanders continue care while he managed the scene



Based upon this part of the article, it appears as if that is what he was doing.


> Proper Technique
> 
> In his report, Williamson confirmed Bradford and the neighbor stopped CPR and that he had instructed them to continue. The officer reported that when he noticed the procedure was not being done properly and that Bradford was blowing air into the boy’s stomach, he told the mother and another woman how to properly administer CPR.
> 
> “Every time Gaines would get a chest compression you could hear the rattle of water,” Williamson wrote in his report. “I could not find a pulse, and he was not breathing.”
> 
> The officer did not perform CPR.


----------



## nomofica

reaper said:


> What if the family informed you the child had Hep c or TB. Would you still preform your duty?



Not without sufficient/proper BSI to do the job without the result of myself contracting whatever the patient may have.



The LEO shouldn't have completely refused to do CPR - compression-only will suffice until EMS arrives with the nifty toys we get to play with that keep us safe and (hopefully) keep the patient alive. However I do agree with refusing to do mouth-to-mouth. Can't remember who posted it, but the LEO could have delegated a family member of the patient to continue rescue breaths while said LEO performed chest compressions. 2-man rescue, lay or professional, isn't a bad thing. Heck, one-man compression-only CPR is better than no care at all.

That being said, time to take a shower, put on the ol' uniform and brace for the cold - work and the plenty ETOH calls here I come!h34r:


----------



## redcrossemt

Cory said:


> I didn't edit it because of that, I edited it immediately after posting <_<
> 
> ...if I am not mistaken, this forum has community leaders to pass judgement on people, not you



Still waiting to hear which federal law requires police officers to do CPR or carry any sort of breathing barriers. I'm positive you won't find one.


----------



## EMSLaw

So, I went ahead and did a bit of research into this.  This is not legal advice, and should not be construed as such, just the fruits of my few minutes poking around...

A number of cases from the indicate that there is no constitutional requirement that a police officer perform CPR, even when the subject was injured during arrest.  They need only summon adequate medical attention.  Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408, 1415 (9th Cir. 1986); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006); Tagstrom v. Enockson, 857 F.2d 502, 504 (8th Cir. 1988); Teasley v. Forler, 548 F. Supp. 2d 694, 709 (E.D. Mo. 2008)

Some states have found that police officers do not have a duty to perform CPR, and that as a discretionary function, it is vested with state immunity. State v. Dekker, 112 Wis. 2d 304, 332 N.W.2d 816 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983); Daley v. Clark, 638 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).  In Daley case, incidentally, is rather sad, involving a young man injured during an after-school fight.  The Sheriff's Deputy who arrived had received only a four-hour "first responder" training in 1990, and had not recertified in CPR since.  There were conflicting stories as to whether he actually moved the two people performing CPR away from the victim.  EMTs arrived four minutes later, inserted a combi-tube, and continued CPR.  When the paramedics arrived, they defibrillated and restored a perfusing rhythym.  No mention in the case of what neurologic deficits, if any, the victim suffered. 

There are other, unreported, cases, basically holding the same thing.  

So it seems very likely, legally speaking, the officer did nothing wrong.  I can find no case law, statute, law review article, or anything of the sort suggesting that officers have a duty to perform CPR - which is in keeping with the general rule that no person has a duty to rescue.  Police officers DO have a duty to summon an ambulance or transport the injured person to the hospital under certain circumstances, but that's it.

I think I made a comment weeks ago about whether his conduct was morally wrong, and that's something that the law isn't competent to comment on.  But there you have it.


----------



## Cory

redcrossemt said:


> Still waiting to hear which federal law requires police officers to do CPR or carry any sort of breathing barriers. I'm positive you won't find one.



Well how about you leave ancient arguments in the past, I'm sure it will be better for all of us. Clearly I lost that debate *long ago *.


----------



## 18G

I think its sad that a police officer will arrive at someones home where a child has drown just to be a spectator or at best a CPR coach. If this officer was dispatched to the scene, than I think he had an obligation to provide care even if just a professional and moral one. I have never knew of any police department that did not require CPR training at a minimum. 

Around here, almost all of the police departments are trained in CPR and carry AED's in their cars. Police officers are always on the street and can usually arrive faster than EMS.  

Someone mentioned about parents and knowing CPR... I totally agree... all parents should be trained in how to perform CPR until someone else arrives (ie EMS, police, fire, etc). But a parent is in no shape to perform CPR on their dead or dying child for long. And having a police officer looking over their shoulder only adds to the anger and frustration. 

Were talking about a child... who knows what the downtime was. Even compression only CPR would have been better than nothing until EMS arrived.


----------



## MedicSqrl

When I did the LEO thing before EMS we were required to do first responder and they gave us the equipment. Some just don't refresh these things so they end up not knowing how when the time comes since its not technically a first line skill for them. Then again you don't see EMT's stopping forceable felonies either, and both are life threatening. Anyone can do compressions, but airway (IMO) should be left to the ones that get paid to secure it.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

At the risk of sounding immature and ignorant I am going to voice my opinion in  the best way I know how under these circumstances. 

I think the officer was in direct violation of his duty as a public servant. In my time in EMS I have NEVER refused to treat someone...EVER! We have a responsibility to treat the sick and injured to the best of our ability and to an extent we are able to do so. There have been times I have been ill equipped to handle a given situation, but this is when a mind worth common sense really shines. I have used plastic bags as gloves and T-Shirts and handkerchiefs as barriers.  Where there is a will there is a way. 

As a person held in high esteem of the public trust we have a moral, ethical, and civic responsibility to perform to the reasonable expectations which define who we are. PD's are no different in the eye of the public, and nor should they be. A police officer once asked me in NM why people love us and hate them, and my answer was simple...because we are not here to judge but to place patient advocacy over own our own personal biases. 

The fact that this mother gave her child to the LEO substantiates the trust and confidence she had in his position as a public servant and he violated this trust. As I said, he could have used almost anything as a barrier...a zip lock bag with a hole in it, a cloth. etc, yet he didn't. In NY there were two  off duty firefighters who were suspended because they refused to treat a sick person, and justifiably so. I see  no distinction. 

Someone asked if the cop could have made a difference...does it matter? The fact is we may never know because he didn't try. Someone else said EMS was 4 minutes away...I don't know about what classes other people are taking, but I learned in 6th grade 4-6 minutes of the brain being deprived of O2 and sugar results in necrosis...I guess we will never know if him/ her performing CPR would have made  a difference, but as a proud parent myself I would be, as I am now, infuriated at his lack of compassion toward a baby in need. 

I know I am going to take a lot of flack over this view point, but I don't care. I have a variety of terms I use to describe these types of "people in the public trust" who violate their duty, but I will keep that to myself. 

All I am saying is when someone needs help, especially a child, there is no room for politics and BS. I believe in rules and common sense, but life is valuable and I have to sleep at night. My daughter will be four in a week, and she knows "Daddy helps sick people". How could I look her in the eye if I let a child her brothers age die because I didn't have the sense to improvise. 

Maybe I am wrong, and again there will be a lot of you who disagree with me here, and probably even want to tell me off, but I am firm in this. Use your head, improvise. There was once a surgeon who used a pocket knife for an airway on a patient on an airliner who would die otherwise. I remember watching the news after the huge earth quake in San Francisco CA, and there was a surgeon who amputated a patients leg before the building could collapse and kill him. You don't need fancy equipment to save a life, just a brain worth having.


----------



## redcrossemt

Jeffrey_169 said:


> We have a responsibility to treat the sick and injured to the best of our ability and to an extent we are able to do so.



I would not say that you are immature, nor ignorant. However, your logic is flawed.

I will give you that EMS has a responsibility to treat the sick and injured. And I think we would agree that LE has a responsibility to arrest those who break the law.

As far as I can tell, you are saying LE has a responsibility to treat the sick and injured. So, therefore, EMS should be arresting people.

Similarly, do EMS providers have a responsibility to "improvise" some garden-hose hack of a solution and attempt to fight a fire because we are public servants???

FD =/= EMS =/= LE

Even if I morally think the police officer should have done compressions, or improvised, or whatever; he had no actual duty to. He will have to deal with the ethical and moral dilemma that this causes. We should not judge him, though; as we weren't there.


----------



## kittaypie

Jeffrey_169 said:


> The fact that this mother gave her child to the LEO substantiates the trust and confidence she had in his position as a public servant and he violated this trust. As I said, he could have used almost anything as a barrier...*a zip lock bag with a hole in it, a cloth*. etc, yet he didn't. In NY there were two  off duty firefighters who were suspended because they refused to treat a sick person, and justifiably so. I see  no distinction.
> 
> Someone asked if the cop could have made a difference...does it matter? The fact is we may never know because he didn't try. Someone else said EMS was 4 minutes away...I don't know about what classes other people are taking, but I learned in 6th grade 4-6 minutes of the brain being deprived of O2 and sugar results in necrosis...*I guess we will never know if him/ her performing CPR would have made  a difference*, but as a proud parent myself I would be, as I am now, infuriated at his lack of compassion toward a baby in need.



two things:

1. a ziplock bag with a hole in it is not an effective barrier device.

2. "In his report, Williamson confirmed Bradford and the neighbor stopped CPR and that he had instructed them to continue. The officer reported that when he noticed the procedure was not being done properly and that Bradford was blowing air into the boy’s stomach, he told the mother and another woman how to properly administer CPR."

CPR was being done while the sheriff was there. i'm doubtful him taking over CPR would've made a difference.


----------



## Cory

When a person calls 911, they believe they are experiencing an emergency situation. When a public safety official arrives on scene, those people place their full trust in the person responding. An officer may not be able to give the same level of care that an EMT/Paraemdic could, but it is a d*** shame to think that an officer would arive on scene and do absolutely nothing. Police officers are not just meant to arrest. They are here to "protect and serve", and that officer should have done everything in his power to assist, and if an officer truly is not trained in any way, then that should be a wake up call for them.


----------



## akflightmedic

Cory said:


> When a person calls 911, they believe they are experiencing an emergency situation. When a PUBLIC SAFETY official arrives on scene, those people place their full trust in the person responding. An officer may not be able to give the same level of care that an EMT/Paraemdic could, but it is a d*** shame to think that an officer would arive on scene and do absolutely nothing. Police officers are not just meant to arrest. They are here to "protect and serve", and that officer should have done everything in his power to assist, and if an officer truly is not trained in any way, then that should be a wake up call for them.



So once the safety has been compromised, such as this case...are you saying they must now become a medical provider as well?

He coached them on proper CPR. I think he "served"...just because you personally do not agree with how he chose to "serve" does not mean he should be hung out to dry. "Doing everything in his power" may very well consisted of him coaching them on how to do CPR.

Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

I must say there are some, at least in my opinion, inaccurate analogies being made to my post. To say EMS should be arresting people is not what I said, nor did I say a zip lock bag was as effective as a good barrier. To use the logic of some of those who replied to me would be to throw common sense out the window, in my perspective. So, a PD officer only has to arrest people who break the law? Okay, then a teacher should have no obligation to report child abuse because they are not LE officers; I have no responsibility to report a drunk driver because I am not a LE officer, and really no one has a responsibility to stop and help anyone if they are not on duty. Because I am not a psychologist I should not counsel a friend, and because I am not a CNA I shouldn't the old lady cross the street. I remember a time when Americans cared about their fellow American, and although we were poor we never starved. When a peace officer dons his uniform he is communicating his willingness to help someone else. LEO's wonder why the public has no faith in them, and why people don't respect them, and then they go pull a stunt like this...I just can't imagine. 

When you are trying to persuade the public you are there to help them, yet you refuse to treat them as people worth saving, you are saying one thing and doing another. I would flip my lid if I discovered a public servant, WHOSE SALRY I PAY refused to conduct himself accordingly. As I said, I remember a time when people cared about their neighbor, and when this was part of what made us such a great nation. Now the mentality is "I don't have to do anything", and "my name is Jimmy and I'll take all you give me". If someone is so callus as too look at a dying 2 y/o child and not the common decency to at least make an attempt to salvage a life, they have no business wearing a public service uniform. They say would it have made a difference...I guess as a police officer he is somehow psychic as well right? 

As I said, police officers are supposed to do more than enforce laws; they are here to protect the public good. 

The reason why we have ethics and civic responsibility is to ensure the "life and liberty" of everyone else, including our children and our neighbors. When I was in the service we were told of an offense called "Conduct Unbecoming of a United States Marine", and I can't help but think this is not only conduct unbecoming of a LEO, but of a human being. Moreover I called a friend of mine who is a LEO and he thought I was joking. He was even appalled at the story. 

Maybe I am being overly harsh, but you know what I am so tired of people making excuses for PD officers. They get away with a lot, and now they can breech the very fabric of being human and this is considered okay? When did we become so immersed in selfishness that now not even children are immune? 

We all have our opinion, and I have stated mine. I am not going to persuade anyone who disagrees with me, and the truth is this is extremely upsetting to me, so I am done on this discussion. I respect the opinion of others, and perhaps I am out of place. All I know is as a father of a two y/o myself it hit a nerve, and in my time I have never seen such an anger inspiring subject. 

We all have our views, and due to my level of anger I will leave this well enough alone.

What happaned to compassion.


----------



## NJFLGHTMDC

*not sure*

I am on the fence there are just as many reasons supporting his actions, and against him


----------



## kittaypie

Jeffrey_169 said:


> ". If someone is so callus as too look at a dying 2 y/o child and not the common decency to at least make an attempt to salvage a life, they have no business wearing a public service uniform. .



he did make an attempt, he made sure CPR was being done effectively and he coached them on their technique. I'm not saying he's a hero for not doing CPR himself, but he did the best he probably couldve done in the moment.


----------



## redcrossemt

Jeffrey_169 said:


> What happaned to compassion.



Compassion isn't always expressed in the same way.

If someone's house is on fire, do you expect me to run into it to check for people because I don a paramedic patch three days a week? Should I make an attempt to get the garden hose? Would you want me to attempt to stop someone with a gun? All of these things seem like the compassionate thing to do. Or, I could be cold hearted and just wait safely outside in my ambulance and request the correct resources for the job.

CPR is not common sense. It's a heroic act which we do not expect from most. There are risks involved.

You don't think it's common sense for me to run into a burning building because it would be unsafe - the risks would be too high. Same with effecting an arrest, or stopping a crazed gunman. But look at the risks of CPR! I'd rather be shot dead or die under a burning roof than die slowly from Hepatitis I acquired during CPR done.

The officer tried to coach the people who were doing CPR. Who's to say that the officer doing CPR himself would have been any better? Maybe the scene was frantic and he felt threatened and didn't want to loose his overall picture of what was going on... We just don't know without being there.


----------



## 18G

Jeffrey_169... perfect, perfect sense. 

If your a police officer and are gonna stop at a scene that is medical in nature.. than be prepared to help... not just be another bystander in a uniform!. Especially when involving a child!

Where is ppls logic???


----------



## Jeffrey_169

redcrossemt said:


> Compassion isn't always expressed in the same way.
> 
> If someone's house is on fire, do you expect me to run into it to check for people because I don a paramedic patch three days a week? Should I make an attempt to get the garden hose? Would you want me to attempt to stop someone with a gun? All of these things seem like the compassionate thing to do. Or, I could be cold hearted and just wait safely outside in my ambulance and request the correct resources for the job.
> 
> CPR is not common sense. It's a heroic act which we do not expect from most. There are risks involved.
> 
> You don't think it's common sense for me to run into a burning building because it would be unsafe - the risks would be too high. Same with effecting an arrest, or stopping a crazed gunman. But look at the risks of CPR! I'd rather be shot dead or die under a burning roof than die slowly from Hepatitis I acquired during CPR done.
> 
> The officer tried to coach the people who were doing CPR. Who's to say that the officer doing CPR himself would have been any better? Maybe the scene was frantic and he felt threatened and didn't want to loose his overall picture of what was going on... We just don't know without being there.



If a person who works in public safety isn't prepared to take risks perhaps a different line of work should be considered. When a police officer dons his/ her uniform they know they are taking a risk. If you can't stand the heat, get the h-e-double hockey sticks out of the kitchen. 

Further more the risks associated with contracting a disease from a patient by performing CPR is about 1%; if I (putting myself in the officer's shoes) fail to act in a responsible and dutiful manner, I have a 100% chance of not being able to sleep for some time...I like the 1% a little better.  

As too me not being there; what can justify doing nothing but instead allowing an already frantic mother continue what was no doubt ineffective CPR? What can be the excuse? Do you have children? Any of you? I do, and there have been 2 occasions where they were sick, and I got to tell you its the same as any other patient. There is a degree of personal involvement which is all to ready to cloud your judgment and experience. He may have not been as trained as an EMT, but at least he can be more objective and effective. 

As too you stopping someone with a gun, lets compare. Are you trained to? I am, so yes, I would; if your not, then no I wouldn't. As too the fire, can you do it safely? probably not so no. There is no doubt the officer is trained in CPR, so yes he should have done his job. Trying to teach a frantic relative how to perform CPR in the heat of the moment is like trying to talk a cow how to untangle its head from a barbed wire fence; don't be surprised when you are cutting a dead cow from your fence.


----------



## Cory

Can someone please just explain to me why police officers are exempt from negligence charges but no one else is?

And also, if you are honestly going to argue that the officer didn't want to endanger himslef; cops are ready to take a bullet and put them selves in the line of fire for citizens, but they aren't willing to get down and give CPR to a two year old boy? This still just blows my mind. And the other justification is that he coached the untrained, frantic, paniced, and overwhelmingly emotionally attatched bystanders(friends,family) into doing CPR for him, all because of this "better you than me" concept? Now I realize it takes a miracle to change someone's opinion around here, especially when the majority of users here decided my input was meaningless long ago, but I just cannot understand the arguments for the officer. You may say that morals don't apply, but I think a true officer should use morality and professionality at the same time.


----------



## akflightmedic

Exactly!

Glad to see that I am not alone in thinking about this logically and not losing sight of the bigger picture. I think too many are presenting an emotional aspect which is well and good in certain situations but maybe not this one...we simply do not know.


----------



## redcrossemt

Cory said:


> And the other justification is that he coached the untrained, frantic, paniced, and overwhelmingly emotionally attatched bystanders(friends,family) into doing CPR for him, all because of this "better you than me" concept?



He coached the child's mother, who was already doing CPR, in how to do it more effectively/correctly.... How is that "better you than me" logic?? Maybe he was managing the scene as a whole, maybe this, maybe that... 

The bottom line is that we just don't know.


----------



## akflightmedic

Have posts been deleted? Where is the post I commented under? Now my post looks totally out of line, might as well delete it too.


----------



## VentMedic

Cory said:


> And the other justification is that he coached the untrained, frantic, paniced, and overwhelmingly emotionally attatched bystanders(friends,family) into doing CPR for him, all because of this "better you than me" concept? Now I realize it takes a miracle to change someone's opinion around here, especially when the majority of users here decided my input was meaningless long ago, but I just cannot understand the arguments for the officer. You may say that morals don't apply, but I think a true officer should use morality and professionality at the same time.


 
If there is a family member is willing to do CPR, I would do the same thing this LEO did and I *HAVE *done that on many occasions. There is nothing wrong with coaching a family member to continue with CPR while you set up your equipment especially when we used to run only 2 Paramedics and not 8 to a scene. 

Any incident involving a child can be highly emotional and the need for scene control is high on the priority list as well because you don't want more victims or patients. Parents and other family members start blaming each other and before you know it a scene can escalate out of control. 
For an LEO to divert his/her attention from this situation and just focus on the child with his back to something that can escalate quickly is very irresponsible. If he had done that he should face a severe reprimand from his department. 

If an LEO allows his own emotions to cloud his responsibilites more people can be injured or killed. We can now see how a highly charged emotional situation got LEOs killed in Oakland, CA. Should have, could have and would have won't bring back the dead. 

Yes, this was a child but CPR was being done. If he had not done CPR on a child before this his performance at it may not have been any better than the family's. CPR was being performed. If this had been a old person this wouldn't even be a discussion as most here would agree with what the LEO did. But, regardless of the patient's age, the same rules for safety should be applied and that includes the responsibilities of the LEO as well as personal protection.


----------



## ffemt8978

akflightmedic said:


> Have posts been deleted? Where is the post I commented under? Now my post looks totally out of line, might as well delete it too.



No, no posts have been deleted.


----------



## redcrossemt

VentMedic said:


> If this had been a old person this wouldn't even be a discussion as most here would agree with what the LEO did. But, regardless of the patient's age, the same rules for safety should be applied and that includes the responsibilities of the LEO as well as personal protection.



I was thinking about asking if this had been different if this were, let's say, a terminal patient with no DNR... or just an elderly person in general.


----------



## 18G

> Trying to teach a frantic relative how to perform CPR in the heat of the moment is like trying to talk a cow how to untangle its head from a barbed wire fence; don't be surprised when you are cutting a dead cow from your fence.



lol... great analogy. so very true.


----------



## 18G

> If there is a family member is willing to do CPR, I would do the same thing this LEO did and I HAVE done that on many occasions. There is nothing wrong with coaching a family member to continue with CPR while you set up your equipment especially when we used to run only 2 Paramedics and not 8 to a scene.



EMS providers are trained and experienced to be efficient with a 2 provider team. A family member is in no shape to be performing CPR or any other life saving intervention when professional help is on the scene. 

CPR as we all know, goes way beyond the physical act of pushing on the chest and blowing air into the lungs. Im sure family doesnt know the science behind it or is even thinking about performance. All they are thinking about is there loved one waking up. 

We bring experience and efficiency which is why we need to be handling care in high priority situations from the start. On stuff like fractures or lacerations, or what not, yeah family involvement is perfectly okay. Bt not when family is facing death of their loved one in front of their eyes.


----------



## redcrossemt

18G said:


> EMS providers are trained and experienced to be efficient with a 2 provider team. A family member is in no shape to be performing CPR or any other life saving intervention when professional help is on the scene.
> 
> CPR as we all know, goes way beyond the physical act of pushing on the chest and blowing air into the lungs. Im sure family doesnt know the science behind it or is even thinking about performance. All they are thinking about is there loved one waking up.
> 
> We bring experience and efficiency which is why we need to be handling care in high priority situations from the start. On stuff like fractures or lacerations, or what not, yeah family involvement is perfectly okay. Bt not when family is facing death of their loved one in front of their eyes.



The officer was by himself with bystanders until the paramedics arrived. Do you think the police officer knows the science behind CPR? Do you think he has experience in CPR? Do you think he'd be efficient at it?

It'd be different if he was a trained EMS provider, dual-role PSO, whatever. But, as it stands, he has no real extra training (layperson CPR who knows how long ago) and no real experience, knowledge, or backup to help him with a cardiac arrest situation in a frantic scene.


----------



## VentMedic

> Trying to teach a frantic relative how to perform CPR in the heat of the moment is like trying to talk a cow how to untangle its head from a barbed wire fence; don't be surprised when you are cutting a dead cow from your fence.


What a ridiculous analogy and I suggest you take the training that dispatchers must go through or learn CPR better so that you can talk someone through it as it might be necessary for them to assist you sometime either on or off the job.  If you are the only one that is CPR certified and the ambulance has a 15 minute response time, good luck doing CPR that long properly and effectively by yourself. 

LEOs are trained to talk people through difficult situations and doing effective CPR would qualify for a difficult situation.



18G said:


> lol... great analogy. so very true.


 
Dispatchers talk parents through CPR and other emergency procedures everyday without ever seeing the scene. There is data to back up their abilities to get people to  do what needs to be done in an emergency with the proper coaching.   But then, looking at some of the threads on the EMS forums, it is easy for some to think learning CPR is very, very difficult.   

When you get to a scene that might have the potential to be very unsafe like an unstable car or the patient, a child, is lying in traffic, do you rush right over or do you secure the scene especially there is already someone with the patient who can do some CPR or first aid?   Even though your first instinct  and emotional response might be to disregard safety and just rush to the patient, you must remember EVERYTHING about your training.  In this situation someone was already able to do CPR effectively with a little coaching which allowed the LEO to focus on the entire situation where there might have been other concerns.

I can almost guarantee that if the LEO was focused on patient care by doing CPR and the EMTs' response was slowed or one of them got injured because he wasn't doing HIS JOB as an LEO, those EMTs would have their attorney on the phone screaming to sue him and demand he be fired.  They would probably also forget all about doing CPR and start typing on some EMS forum about how negligent the LEO was.


----------

