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

[firemedic1563]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.