2010 Olympics starts out with death!!

[karaya]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.