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]

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.

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...

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]

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

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.