[KGB7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I never said make no effort to help at all, but I am suggesting that the amount of commitment you are willing to make to help someone who does not want your help is not, and should not, be the same amount of commitment that you should make for someone who would gratefully accept your help.

If the drowning person was my mother and father, and they wanted help, then of course I'd be very upset if no effort was made to try and save them.
If they didnt want any help and wanted to end it, then the finger of blame should be at least partially pointed at me for not offering the needed support earlier and letting it get to that point. Not the first responders fault that things have escalated, to such an extreme situation. Like the parents who blame a rock band if their child kills themself after listening to their music. Guess what folks, it's not the band's fault; obviously something went waay off the rails long before junior hit play on Nirvana for the last time, and the band isnt the guilty party there either.

My argument of course does assume that they knew of his intentions; if they had no way of knowing, and they still made no effort, then that definately is wrong !

My possibly harsh opinions stems from talking with a friend who works as a paramedic in a nasty part of town. I hear stories of them picking up the same damn crackhead every Saturday night, with a different set of stab wounds or OD symptoms, until eventually that person is DOA. How much money is wasted there, when that could be applied to someone who needs the help, wants the help ? Like it or not, we live in a planet of finite resources, folks. Allocating those resources poorly is in nobody's best interests.

It doesnt matter what a suicidal victim wants, he/she no longer has the legal capacity to make a rational decision on his/her behalf, thus police or firefighters have to intervine and save his/hers life.


If you called 911 right now and told them you going to kill your self with a hand gun but you dont want them to arrive for another half an hour, they would be at your house in under 1min. Why? To try and save your life.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by solefald

your friend gets paid to help people who need medical attention and not discriminate.

with your logic, if a patient they are picking up is 90 years old, and they already picked up the same patient 3 times this month, wouldn't it be cheaper for taxpayers to let that person die where they at, without transporting them to the hospital and wasting those finite resources?

Nope, that's not my logic at all! I respect everyone's right to disagree with me, but it's always frustrating when folks dont address my position and resort to straw man attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The point I have tried to state in each post is that the desire to be helped is very relevant. In your example, the 90 year old person may want help each time. The still have a will to live, so they can see their grandson one more time (or whatever the case may be). Even if that 90 yr old person is riddled with cancer, and every medical expert agrees they wont last till the weekend, I do believe it is NOT a waste to help them if they want help, and will be grateful for the chance to spend 1 more hour with their grandson.

However, if a physically fine 20 year old, who may have another 60 years of life in them (medically speaking), does not want help, why waste resources on that, especially if it puts the responder in harms way, thus potentially impairing their ability to help the aforementioned 90 year old spend that precious last hour with their loved one.

Is it sad that some folks get to the state where they feel that way ? Absolutely. The fault there once again lies within their own circle of family/friends, who have clearly failed in their responsibility to offer support. Or, forcefully stage an intervention if needed, do whatever it takes. They are your loved one. See the comments of the late actor Carrol O'Connor (TV's archie bunker) regarding his regrets about not using tough love to save his son from a suicide.

The fault does not lie with the first responders who show up to try and clean up a mess that other let happen due to their inaction. The fact this person is gone now is NOT the fault of the people who stood on the shore and did nothing, it's the fault of his family and friends who didnt help him get back up when he fell (psychologically speaking).

[NYCGP]

Originally Posted by KGB7

I think more of the lines, how to save a drowning victim and not get sued later for something dumb.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS...

If you can't realize that getting sued is government agencies biggest fear you are completely ignorant of the country we live in.

Want to blame someone in this situation, blame the fucking ambulance chasers that would have latched on to this guy and told him it was his "right" to sue the police/fire department for saving his life.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

However, if a physically fine 20 year old, who may have another 60 years of life in them (medically speaking), does not want help, why waste resources on that, especially if it puts the responder in harms way, thus potentially impairing their ability to help the aforementioned 90 year old spend that precious last hour with their loved one.

Are you *sure* that that person *really* wants to die and not just crying out for help?

If a 16 year old who gets bullied in school decides to end their life, should we let them? It's their own desire, right?
What about a person who lost their job, their car, their house and their family wants to die? Should we let them die, just because they want to?
What about a pregnant woman, who was denied an abortion by a religious doctor and decides that suicide is the best way out? Don't waste our resources and let her die?

My point is that you never know what their reasons for suicide are. They may be telling you that this is *really* what they want to do, but they may not be in the right state of mind at the moment.

Should we let them proceed in the name of finite resources?

Sorry, but suicide is *never* an option. I have friends whos loved ones committed suicides. Do you want to think of those people for a second or saving resources is more important?

[NYCGP]

Sole when did you become such a hardcore troll...?

[ragingclue]

Have you ever tried to save someone who was in a panic and drowning? It's fucking ridiculously hard.

Plus, the guy was suicidal, they just helped him not wimp out (<----not serious)

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

However, if a physically fine 20 year old, who may have another 60 years of life in them (medically speaking), does not want help, why waste resources on that, especially if it puts the responder in harms way, thus potentially impairing their ability to help the aforementioned 90 year old spend that precious last hour with their loved one.
\
The fault does not lie with the first responders who show up to try and clean up a mess that other let happen due to their inaction. The fact this person is gone now is NOT the fault of the people who stood on the shore and did nothing, it's the fault of his family and friends who didnt help him get back up when he fell (psychologically speaking).

Not helping a 20 year old? Thats just wrong on so many levels!

I hope to god you change your way of thinking, if not, then you should never work with people or live near people.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

Sole when did you become such a hardcore troll...?

I am not trying to troll anyone, but this topic has been bothering me for a while, so I just want to understand what other people's point of view is and why.

[just4kickz]

i know lay responders should never get in the water unless the water is less than chest deep, but i'm curious as to how first responders should respond. if the guy is treading in water, from my pov, boats would be necessary to pull the person out. why the cops didnt go get a boat... well beats me.

[NYCGP]

We live in the single most litigious society in the world.. what else is there to understand? Every single decision that is made is scrutinized.. You wouldn't be posting up this story if that guy in the water drowned the first responder that took it upon himself to go out there and save this lunatic.. would you? It wouldn't support your view therefore you would denounce it.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by just4kickz

i know lay responders should never get in the water unless the water is less than chest deep, but i'm curious as to how first responders should respond. if the guy is treading in water, from my pov, boats would be necessary to pull the person out. why the cops didnt go get a boat... well beats me.

I read on another site this morning (i think on Google News somewhere, cant find it now) that cops called US Coast Guard, but the boat Coast Guard brought was too large for the shallow waters, so they could not even come close to the guy. Coast Guard then called a helicopter, which was on another mission at the time and needed to refuel before coming to get this dude and by the time they finished refueling it was too late.

This brings it up to 3 first response agencies that were not able to help him, and 1 of those 3 specializes in water rescue.

[schoy]

I'm going to venture a guess that all (if not most) of the first responders could swim. However, it sounds like no one had the proper certification for water rescues. And the ones that did (the Coast Guard) didn't have immediate access to appropriate equipment.

Frankly, as others have pointed out, there's no one to blame other than our litigious society, who result in mountains of risk-adverse policies at every level of societal administration.

[Ochmonek]

Originally Posted by schoy

I'm going to venture a guess that all (if not most) of the first responders could swim. However, it sounds like no one had the proper certification for water rescues. And the ones that did (the Coast Guard) didn't have immediate access to appropriate equipment.

Frankly, as others have pointed out, there's no one to blame other than our litigious society, who result in mountains of risk-adverse policies at every level of societal administration.

No one is taking into account the undertow present and the temperature of the water. The first responders didn't have the proper equipment to get into the water. If they'd have jumped in to save the man, they could have drowned also.

[KGB7]

Firefighters have a lot of rope on their trucks. How hard is it to tie few guys together to a firetruck and go after this guy?


I remember few years back in Outerbanks NC, a car got stuck in the sand by the beach. A cop in his SUV was just standing there looking at this old man as he was trying to drive his coupe out of the sand.
Plus there was a line of half a dozen locals in their trucks with monster tires just watching this old man trying to get out of the sand. No one was willing to help.

I drove on to the beach with my SUV and pulled the old mans car out, and the Cop thanked me. Told me: "better you then me, because i didnt want to tear his bumper off'. Hello!?!? The car has tow hooks you moron! Two in the front and one in the rear!

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by solefald

Are you *sure* that that person *really* wants to die and not just crying out for help?

If a 16 year old who gets bullied in school decides to end their life, should we let them? It's their own desire, right?
What about a person who lost their job, their car, their house and their family wants to die? Should we let them die, just because they want to?
What about a pregnant woman, who was denied an abortion by a religious doctor and decides that suicide is the best way out? Don't waste our resources and let her die?

My point is that you never know what their reasons for suicide are. They may be telling you that this is *really* what they want to do, but they may not be in the right state of mind at the moment.

Should we let them proceed in the name of finite resources?

Sorry, but suicide is *never* an option. I have friends whos loved ones committed suicides. Do you want to think of those people for a second or saving resources is more important?

Am I sure they really want to die ? Of course not, I can't possibly make that decision because I dont know them. Neither can a first responder. Nor should they be asked to make that call. The folks who can make that call are the immediate friends/family, who should ultimately be held more responsible as they had visibility into the root causes that a responder could not. If they care about that person, they should be the ones helping them get the professional care they need. (or forcing them to if needed, just ask Carrol O'Connor or many others in the same boat)

It takes a village as they say, and just because a first responder is the last point of contact does not mean they hold ultimate responsibility. If the Village would step in and help a bit earlier, than the litigious issues would not arise because the responder would not be put in that position in the first place.

Should we (as a society) let someone proceed with trying to kill themselves? No, if you are a half decent friend you will do "whatever it takes", as Carrol says. If it's your friend, then accountability starts with YOU, not the first responder. If people would prefer to not shoulder that responsibility, and would rather pay the ambulance to rescue the same person over and over rather than addressing the root cause of the problem will not help anyone long term, and only delays the inevitable.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Am I sure they really want to die ? Of course not, I can't possibly make that decision because I dont know them. Neither can a first responder. Nor should they be asked to make that call. The folks who can make that call are the immediate friends/family, who should ultimately be held more responsible as they had visibility into the root causes that a responder could not. If they care about that person, they should be the ones helping them get the professional care they need. (or forcing them to if needed, just ask Carrol O'Connor or many others in the same boat)

It takes a village as they say, and just because a first responder is the last point of contact does not mean they hold ultimate responsibility. If the Village would step in and help a bit earlier, than the litigious issues would not arise because the responder would not be put in that position in the first place.

Should we (as a society) let someone proceed with trying to kill themselves? No, if you are a half decent friend you will do "whatever it takes", as Carrol says. If it's your friend, then accountability starts with YOU, not the first responder. If people would prefer to not shoulder that responsibility, and would rather pay the ambulance to rescue the same person over and over rather than addressing the root cause of the problem will not help anyone long term, and only delays the inevitable.

What if the person has no family or friends?? Have you thought about that?? Not every one is fortunate as you and I to have both or even one of the two.

[radix]

1. Swim out with something buoyant.
2. Throw said thing to guy.
3. Wait for boat as guy floats while holding on to said buoyant thing.


Easy. The only difficult thing might be finding something buoyant, but I would expect that as first responders that they would have something that fits the bill.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by KGB7

Not helping a 20 year old? Thats just wrong on so many levels!

I hope to god you change your way of thinking, if not, then you should never work with people or live near people.

What is wrong on so many levels are the friends and family of the theoretical 20 year old who sat idly by while he unraveled to the point where he became convinced that was his best option, and then left it up to the responder (a complete stranger), to clean up the mess that they did nothing to prevent.

Trust me, I'm not society's biggest problem. People who call themselves "friends" and let those close to them get to that point are the ones who should be kept away from people. I'd rather have someone tell me to my face that he hates me, than claim to be my friend and then do nothing if I were to find myself going down that dark road....

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by KGB7

What if the person has no family or friends?? Have you thought about that?? Not every one is fortunate as you and I to have both or even one of the two.

If that person has no friends to help address the ROOT CAUSE, then addressing the SYMPTOM will only cause the same situation to unfold over and over, thus delaying the inevitable. There will be nobody there to talk him off the ledge, and he'll try again. And again. One day, when the ambulance gets there, it will be too late.

That is the case my paramedic friend deals with every day. People who are in that spot may need immediate medical care, but what they really need is serious, ongoing social support and help. Stuff that is well beyond what the ambulance driver can possibly hope to deliver, unless he's willing to spend all of his free time becoming that person's only friend. Government cutbacks and lousy economy means theres simply not enough social workers to go around. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to fund the level of care needed.

Sad, why I'd even say depressing even, but true. If you have a sustainable solution to that which is financially viable, I'm sure lots of people would love to hear from you. If not, then I sure hope that nobody you care about ends up getting delayed response because the ambulance is picking up the crackhead for the 10th time.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

If that person has no friends to help address the ROOT CAUSE, then addressing the SYMPTOM will only cause the same situation to unfold over and over, thus delaying the inevitable. There will be nobody there to talk him off the ledge, and he'll try again. And again. One day, when the ambulance gets there, it will be too late.

That is the case my paramedic friend deals with every day. People who are in that spot may need immediate medical care, but what they really need is serious, ongoing social support and help. Stuff that is well beyond what the ambulance driver can possibly hope to deliver, unless he's willing to spend all of his free time becoming that person's only friend. Government cutbacks and lousy economy means theres simply not enough social workers to go around. Taxpayers simply cannot afford to fund the level of care needed.

Sad, why I'd even say depressing even, but true. If you have a sustainable solution to that which is financially viable, I'm sure lots of people would love to hear from you. If not, then I sure hope that nobody you care about ends up getting delayed response because the ambulance is picking up the crackhead for the 10th time.

Thats what the social workers are for, thats what the free visits to pshycaotrists are for. There are many many programs to help people like this 20 year old so he never tries to commit suicide again.

Honestly, you need to do research in to this subject to understand that there is a lot of help freely availalable for anyone who needs and or wants help.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by KGB7

Thats what the social workers are for, thats what the free visits to pshycaotrists are for. There are many many programs to help people like this 20 year old so he never tries to commit suicide again.

Honestly, you need to do research in to this subject to understand that there is a lot of help freely availalable for anyone who needs and or wants help.

Yes, and like I said several times already, the persons desire for help is relevant. Those willing to avail themselves of that are not the problem.

If they need help, but mental issues cause you to not want it, and there is no network of friends or family to convince (or possibly even force them) to see the free social worker, then they wont go see them, which is no different than not having any free help available. Just like having friends who dont do whatever it takes to talk you off the ledge is no different than not having any friends at all. I'm not talking in an abstract theoretical sense here, this is from actual situations my friend deals with.

Either way, they still have the same issues, which cause them to take the same drastic actions over and over, which causes the ambulance to rescue them over and over until they finally get there too late.

System is broken, and spending finite money to re-deploy the ambulance over and over does not fix it; I'm not sure how else to put it...

[AngelinIsRich08]

They could not form a human chain with those 75 people?