http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/us/firefighters-dying-man/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Unbelievable! An elderly man had a heart attack across the street from a fire station and the firefighters refused to help. Concerned citizens were told they needed to call 911 for the firefighters to be dispatched.
Are we just becoming collectively dumb and callous?
bananas / 9899 posts
My only question is "why?" Why didn't they help? I'd like to know what the firefighters were thinking. Like it says in the article, firefighters run in to burning buildings to save people... so why wouldn't they help a man who collapsed across the street? It also says that apparently no protocols would have prevented them from offering aid... so I'm completely baffled.
grapefruit / 4089 posts
I really don't understand. My aunt works for a fire department here - these guys are always the first on the scene. They literally dive head first into anything because it is their job. There is just no way that they wouldn't all come pouring out to help this man. I don't get it.
pomelo / 5257 posts
I could not believe this story! I'm from DC and I expect better from my hometown. And the firefighters are suspended WITH pay? Isn't that also called "a vacation"? Ugh
GOLD / pomelo / 5737 posts
Either they are just a**holes or they had a reason but are getting thrown under the bus by their department. Just seems really off. 
clementine / 984 posts
My only guess would be the liability aspect of it. If they feel they can't respond w/o dispatch to a situation which may/may not be an emergency, they may have felt unsure of if they'd be responding as citizens or emergency responders and what legal protections they would be afforded . The ambulance mix up just makes the situation worse
hostess / papaya / 10540 posts
That shouldn't have happened, how sad. I hope there's a follow-up article after they find out why things happened the way they did.
GOLD / pomelo / 5737 posts
@indi: I was thinking something along those lines too... I guess it is just hard for me to accept that they are all just so cold hearted...especially because dh knows a couple cops who went through situations where it seems the media didn't tell the whole story. Anyhow if they DID just refuse for no good reason that is disgusting.
grapefruit / 4800 posts
@googly-eyes: @hellocupcake: @indi: Is being unsure of liability issues a good reason to not respond as either citizens or as members of the fire department to a potential emergency?
admin / wonderful grape / 20724 posts
@Maysprout: sadly that's why Good Samaritan laws are needed... because without clear liability protection, you could be risking your house and assets by helping someone.
grapefruit / 4800 posts
@mrbee: DC has good Samaritan laws.
Most fire stations have protocols for walk ins and I'm sure they would in a big city.
clementine / 984 posts
@mrbee: I agree. It's extremely unfortunate, but sometimes that's the situation people put themselves into if they try to help.
@Maysprout: I don't think it's a good reason, but it's a confusion that does exist. I can imagine that the firefighters on duty may have even been more concerned about what they "were" when they responded. If they're working, they're likely not regular citizens but FFs. And if they're FFs but not covered b/c there was no dispatch yet, they may have been stuck. I hope we'll learn more as it sorts out, but it could potentially be that they were pretty much in limbo waiting for a call to allow them to go assist and that's why they were urging people to call in.
papaya / 10473 posts
We live in a very litigious society. I'm not at all surprised by this. I know lots of nurses, police officers, and firemen who would be hesitant to act for fear of liability.
pomelo / 5257 posts
I figured it was for liability reasons, or the possibility of being fired for not following protocol. But I'd like to think that if I was faced with someone DYING vs. losing my job, or even getting sued, I'd choose to still save them. Come on.
GOLD / pomelo / 5737 posts
@MrsSCB: Do we know if they thought he was dying at the time? Obviously it was a possibility, and it happened, but seeing lots of people freak out on a daily basis, it's also possible they thought he would be ok waiting? And I wonder what details the probationary person told their superiors and just what they all were thinking? So many questions come to mind, I wonder if we will hear more or hear from them.
pomelo / 5257 posts
@googly-eyes: they knew he was having a heart attack. There's always the possibility of death in that situation. I just can't imagine a scenario of knowing someone is having a heart attack, knowing how to help them, and doing nothing because of "protocol."
admin / wonderful grape / 20724 posts
@MrsSCB: it's tough though... what if your spouse did that, and then the person died and their family sued and won, and you lost your home and owed money for the next decade? That'd be a tough pill to swallow!
GOLD / pomelo / 5737 posts
@MrsSCB: Ah, ok, I didn't hear/see that. But I only read a couple articles so I haven't been following all that closely I guess. Did the daughter know it was a heart attack? Can you know that without even a paramedic? Sorry, I don't know much of anything about heart attacks. I still can see reasons for it but I think others have worded it better than I can... I know that makes me sound callous.
pomelo / 5257 posts
@mrbee: well first of all, this may all be a moot point because according to this article there are no regulations in place that would have officially prevented the firefighters from acting http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dc-firefighters-showed-callous-disregard-for-a-mans-life/2014/01/30/ee083e1c-894f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
Second, DC does have a Good Samaritan law which I believe would protect someone trying to help anyway. Frankly, I think that's something a firefighter should know. But really, when facing a stranger having a heart attack, which I have, my thoughts do not even begin to turn to liability and lawsuits, but to "what do I need to do to help this person?"
admin / wonderful grape / 20724 posts
@MrsSCB: Just trying to see the other side to it. I'd hope I'd do the right thing too!!
pomelo / 5257 posts
@mrbee: I've been pretty upset by this story, tbh, because of personal experience. A guy in front of me at a subway stop collapsed and was pretty clearly having a heart attack. I didn't know CPR at the time (definitely do now) but I just immediately dropped my suitcase and started racing up the stairs yelling for help. Other people also stopped what they were doing to help. Having seen that and how frantic people were, I just can't imagine standing around doing nothing, knowing someone was having a heart attack. I guess it may not be as terrifying for firefighters who have seen things like it before, but I'd hope that medical professionals wouldn't get so jaded by emergencies that they no longer feel the urgency.
grapefruit / 4800 posts
@MrsSCB: Thanks, I was starting to feel crazy for thinking it was odd to think of liability issues in the face of someone dying. My friend and I were hit by a car a couple blocks down from a fire station. They were there so quick, there was no way it had gone through some sort of relay. I was fine but my friend looked bad (she ended up recovering fine) and I was thankful they came so quick, I can't imagine them just standing and watching.
@mrbee: In the remote possibility that they sued and won - I could deal with that better than knowing my husband could have helped and instead stood and watched someone die as people asked him for help. I'm not sure our marriage could recover completely from knowing that.
admin / wonderful grape / 20724 posts
@Maysprout: I hope it doesn't seem like I am advocating for ignoring people in peril.
clementine / 984 posts
@mrbee: Same. I would personally feel compelled to act, but I'm just a civilian. As an attorney reading the article, though, my first thought as to why they would have hesitated went straight to confusion about their role and liabilities at play.
bananas / 9899 posts
@MrsSCB: This is what I thought. The first article says there was no protocol that would have prevented the firefighters from acting. My first thought also was that it may have been a liability thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I still am wracking my brain for why they didn't help. I would really like to know what they were thinking. If anyone has an article showing more of their point of view, please share!
| Today | Monthly Record | |
|---|---|---|
| Topics | 1 | 0 |
| Posts | 0 | 1 |
Ask for Help
Make a Suggestion
Frequently Asked Questions
Bee Levels
Acronyms
Most Viewed Posts
Hellobee Gold
Hellobee Recipes
Hellobee Features
Hellobee Contests
Baby-led Weaning
Bento Boxes
Breastfeeding
Newborn Essentials
Parties
Postpartum Care Essentials
Sensory Play Activities
Sleep Training
Starting Solids Gear
Transitioning to Toddler Bed
All Series
Who We Are
About the Bloggers
About the Hostesses
Contributing Bloggers
Apply to Blog
Apply to Hostess
Submit a Guest Blog
Hellobee Buttons
How We Make Money
Community Policies
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
25 comments