Showing posts with label nurses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nurses. Show all posts

Monday, March 4, 2013

Unreal 9-1-1 nightmare: Nurse refuses to save dying woman by doing CPR

'Is there anybody that's willing to help this lady and not let her die?'

911-dispatcher-600-340x205[1]WND: It’s nothing short of a 9-1-1 nightmare, as an emergency dispatcher begs a nurse to perform CPR on a woman who wasn’t breathing and eventually died.

What’s shocking is the nurse not only refused to perform the CPR, she also refused to hand the cell phone to anyone else to help the dying woman.

Authorities have just released the chilling audiotape of the 9-1-1 call, where the 87-year-old woman at the Glenwood Gardens Retirement Facility in Bakersfield, Calif., was passed out on the dining-room floor.

When the dispatcher asks, “Is she breathing?” the caller replies, “‘Is she breathing?’ Barely.”

When asked to perform CPR, the nurse can be heard saying, “Yeah, we can’t do CPR at this facility.”

The dispatcher then says, “OK, then hand the phone to the passerby. If you can’t do it, I need, hand it to the passerby, I’ll have her do it. Or if you’ve got any citizens there, I’ll have them do it.”

“No, no, it’s not,” the nurse says. 

Complete audio of the 9-1-1 call can be heard here:

Raw Audio:  911 Call of Dying Woman Refused CPR…

The dispatcher said, “Anybody there can do CPR. Give them the phone, please. … This woman’s not breathing enough. She’s going to die if we don’t get this started.”

With time a crucial factor, the female dispatcher tries desperately to convince the nurse to take action, lamenting, “I don’t understand why you’re not willing to help this patient. Is there anybody that works there that’s willing to do it?”

“We can’t do that,” the nurse says. “That’s what I’m trying to say.”

“Are we just going to let this lady die?” the dispatcher says.

“Well, that’s why we’re calling 9-1-1,” the nurse replies.

“Is there a gardener … any staff? Anybody that doesn’t work for you, anywhere?” the dispatcher asks.”Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady? As a human being, I don’t, you know, is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die?”

The nurse replies, “Um, not at this time.”

It was too late to save the woman by the time paramedics arrived.

“Our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives,” Jeffrey Toomer, executive director of Glenwood Gardens, said in a statement to NBC’s “Today” show. “That is the protocol we followed.”

Maribeth Bersani, of the Assisted Living Federation of America, told CBS News: “There’s no requirement that the people in the building be trained to perform CPR, so a company could state in a policy they don’t want anyone to initiate CPR.”

Jack Ford, a legal analyst for CBS, called the scenario “morally reprehensible,” and said the question involves, “a legal responsibility and legal liability.”

Raw Video: 911 Recording:  Did Liability Fears Lead to Woman’s Death?

Ford said: “What’s the agreement that this woman and her family had with this home, and … it was a residential facility, not a nursing home, assisted living. Very different if it was that. So if in their agreement they say specifically, ‘We do not provide emergency medical care. We will get somebody for you,’ then that could shield them from some problems. Then other question is, what are your reasonable expectations. When they sold this as a sales pitch, did they say, ‘Look, we have wonderful workout facilities, wonderful dining facilities and we have medical people on site here.’ Well, you know then, despite what might be in the agreement there, you have a reasonable expectation.”

As for the woman who refused to help, Ford said she was apparently told something as an employee.

“She may well be in a tough position,” he noted . “If she was told by her employers, ‘You cannot do this, if you do, you’re in violation, and you’ll lose your job.’ Now you have a woman being told, do I try to save someone’s life and by doing so, do I risk my own job for doing it. That’s why you have to look to the employers. The reality is, some states, you are starting to pass Good Samaritan laws that say you can’t be sued if you try to stop and help somebody, the reason is people sue you sometimes if you try to stop and help somebody. You have to look at the culture of society here, the litigious nature of society. It just – it’s a terrible tragedy.”

Thursday, December 6, 2012

American Nurses Association Should Not Support Assisted Suicide

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) has responded to ANA’s call for public comments on their proposed document “Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.”

As an organization dedicated to the preservation of ethical standards in the nursing profession, NAPN finds the document an unnecessary change from the current position. While the document makes several good statements regarding respect for the patient, any accommodation to the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia has no place in the medical profession. Nurses are healers, not killers, and legalization of the practice will not make it ethical.

The document cites as one resource for their study the pro-euthanasia organization, Compassion in Choices. The use of organizations as resources which have as their primary focus the legalization of these practices does not lend to the credibility of the document. There are other sources for the same statistics that could have been cited.

NAPN notes that the current statement of the ANA position on assisted suicide and euthanasia does not require any revision. Sadly, even that document, which declined to endorse assisted suicide/euthanasia, was not sufficient for the ANA to come to the protection of the life of Terri Schiavo who was not in the process of dying as food and hydration were withdrawn from her in order to assure her death. In their official statement, the ANA sided with the controversial determination that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and as such, the proper decision was reached in the withdrawing of nutrition and hydration based on some unsubstantiated statements she supposedly made regarding the care she would have wanted under such circumstances. The stated position of the ANA does not translate into life-affirming actions on the part of the ANA. The absence of activity to protect the life of patients speaks volumes and it would be naïve to think that the new document would produce any different action on the part of the ANA.

The main objection of NAPN to the document is the lack of any real protection for the conscience rights of nurses. As an organization which has been involved in the defense of exercise of these rights, it is distressing to us that the professional organization which purports to represent nurses has been absent in the defense of these nurses in spite of any platitudes to the contrary. Yes, limits outlined in the document do exist, but it seems unlikely that the ANA will come to the defense of the nurse who declines to participate when it has not done so in the practice of abortion. More than once at the state level where conscience protections were being considered for legislation, the state affiliate of the ANA has testified, not on behalf of the nurses, but on behalf of those who would force them to violate their conscience. Where are the protections for those in the medical profession who would object to participating in the omission of care for Terri Schiavo? The ANA remained silent when President Obama rescinded the conscience protections which were put in place in the waning months of the Bush administration. Such actions lead one to question just who the ANA actually represents.

Lastly, it should be noted that the ANA position of support for the highly politicized Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act further clouds the stated position of the ANA. Support for an act which promotes wholesale practice of abortion and provides for a Patient Advisory Board which would limit treatment is counter to the stated position of the ANA. The ANA cannot have it both ways. You cannot make high minded statements to the public and then act in a manner contradictory to these statements and retain your credibility.

We pro-life nurses feel abandoned with regard to the protection of our conscience rights in the workplace. In spite of the position statement of ANA supporting a nurse’s right to be exempt from participating in procedures which transgress her moral principles, they have been absent in the defense of nurses such as Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo in New York in her dispute with Mt. Sinai Hospital for forcing her to choose between her conscience and her job. They were in absentia in the defense of the twelve nurses in New Jersey who were told they must participate in abortion or lose their jobs. In spite of platitudes in their statement, it has not translated into action. Nurses deserve better representation.

LifeNews Note: Marianne Linane is the Executive Director of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. She holds a Masters Degree in Bioethics from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

cardinaloconnorad

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Obama Gets Civilian Army In Healthcare Bill

Barack Obama has apparently fulfilled his campaign wish of establishing a civilian army along with setting up Universal Healthcare in America.

Details of the civilian army were hidden in the voluminous Obamacare bill, which our Congressmen and Senators voted on but did not read.

See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT–
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.
(3) APPOINTMENT.– Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

Related:

Letter Exposes Plan to Train Combat Nurses on US Soil

Obama’s Civilian Army (UPDATED)

Beck & the Military Weigh in on Army’s Public Training Exercises

ObamaCare… This Will Knock Your Socks Off!!

Parker: In Search of Conservative Leadership

Obama's Civilian Army is now LAW and is Funded – video has been removed