40 replies to this topic

[JulioJoglar]

All right people, I AM BACK!!!! Did you all miss me? (hell no!)

After a few weeks in exile, I am glad to be back to SD. So, having said that, let's get busy.

Now, imagine you are diving off the coast of Florida when suddenly you get bent. The people in the boat you're in, doing what they're supposed to do, take good care of you and the Coast Guard is called. The CG decides to help you. Sometime later, The Coast Guard crew arrives to the scene and decide to evacuate you by boat and to transport you to the nearest chamber. In the way to the chamber, the Coast Guard crew fails to provide you with oxygen or other emergency care. Sometime later, you arrive to the local chamber and you are treated. You survive the episode but, unfortunatelly, you are now paralyzed for the rest of your life. Your family, very upset, decides to sue the Coast Guard arguing that you could have avoided permanent injury if the Coast Guard had either provided you with oxygen or aid.

Well, that actually happened in February 200 in Jacksonville, Florida. The Coast Guard was sued by the family of the victim and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a few days ago that they will not hear the case. In other words, the Court refuses to consider whether the U.S Coast Guard can be sued for providing questionable emergency care to an injured Florida diver who later became paralyzed, First Coast News reported.

http://www.firstcoas...x?storyid=27264

You need to be aware that the U.S Coast Guard is NOT required to rescue scuba divers since scuba divers voluntarily accept the risks inherent of the sport. However, once the Coast Guard agrees to provide rescue, can they be held liable for administering inadequate aid? What do you think?

[jextract]

Not too terribly surprising to me. In the past, the Supreme Court also has decided that police have no legal responsibility to protect you (a surprise to many people).

[BradfordNC]

the Supreme Court also has decided that police have no legal responsibility to protect you (a surprise to many people).

thats the reason the proper term is law enforcement. they are only required to enforce teh laws after they have been broken. there is no requirement for them or anyone else to risk their own life for anyone else.

the constitution has always stated that personal security is an individual responsibility.


about the coast guard, not knowing all the facts in the case. it is possible there was no one onboard qualified to administer oxygen, or even if there was any onboard to give.

bottom line is, when you choose to scuba dive, you assume all the risks inherent in this hobby.

the man is alive. he should be happy about that. his family should be happy about that.

if the coast guard hadn't taken him to the chamber, he might very well be dead right now.

[Walter]

THe Supreme Court did not rule one way or the other, they simply declined to hear the case which leaves the lower court ruling in place. If four or more of the justices don't vote to hear the case, it doesn't get heard.

Usually, if O2 is already being administered, the Coast Guard will transport it along with the patient. The facts are scarce in the story. Was he taken off O2 or was he never on it? If the former, I'd have a problem with their handling of the situation. OTOH, if it was the latter, I wouldn't expect them to have O2 on board. As for the speed of the vessel, if the private boat was faster, why wasn't it transporting him in the first place?

I've seen the Coast Guard act very professionally in transporting bent divers. OTOH, I remember one incident in the Keys in the mid '80's involving a free diver in which the Coast Guard was frighteningly poor in its response. The free divers on the vessel recovered one of their unconscious divers at approximately 80 feet, if memory serves. They call the Coast Guard on channel 16 (I was on another boat several miles away listening as it happened) to request aid and instructions. At no point did the vessel get under way nor were they instructed to get underway. They were directed to give CPR and informed that EMS had been notified of the accident. The rescuers were administering CPR for 10 to 15 minutes when they asked when they could expect the helicopter to arrive. They were told no helicopter was in route. They asked when the Coast Guard boat would arrive. They were told no Coast Guard boat was in route. At this point, they were instructed to transport the victim to shore. Admittedly, this man was likely going to be DOA anyway, but by not telling the rescuers to get underway ASAP, the Coast Guard eliminated any chance he had. OTOH, I was also shocked to discover the boat had not been underway while administering CPR. Lots of screw ups that day.

[nextariel]

Off topic Warning. Welcome Back Julio! You mom's bean salad is great! Thanks for the recipe.

[Sophia]

the Supreme Court also has decided that police have no legal responsibility to protect you (a surprise to many people).

thats the reason the proper term is law enforcement. they are only required to enforce teh laws after they have been broken. there is no requirement for them or anyone else to risk their own life for anyone else.

the constitution has always stated that personal security is an individual responsibility.

Actually, after-the-fact was not what was being referred to in that decision. Althouth, that would be the logical interpretation.

Two women were raped and tortured in their apartment for HOURS. They had called the police WHILE the scum was breaking in. The police did not bother to go to the apartment until like 12 hours after the call (I am a bit fuzzy on the precise number, but was large) After all, if the police went right away they might have to actually confront a criminal. There was a lawsuit. The decision was that the police were to protect the 'group' and not the individual.

I have an NRA sticker on my bedroom window and back door. I figure they are better than any burgler alarm stickers.

[TraceMalin]

You need to be aware that the U.S Coast Guard is NOT required to rescue scuba divers since scuba divers voluntarily accept the risks inherent of the sport. However, once the Coast Guard agrees to provide rescue, can they be held liable for administering inadequate aid? What do you think?

Oh, I'm sure the lawyers will make sure they are even if not truly responsible. A good read is PADI's "The Law & the Diving Professional." You won't believe some of the cases. I learned 3 things while I was in college:

1) Critical thinking skills - much of these are lost in tort courses

2) To be a SCUBA instructor

3) How to play lacrosse


Lacrosse taught me that things are always 20/20 in hindsight and future lawyers make funny crunching sounds when you hit them hard enough

Trace

[BradfordNC]

Actually, after-the-fact was not what was being referred to in that decision. Althouth, that would be the logical interpretation.

Two women were raped and tortured in their apartment for HOURS. They had called the police WHILE the scum was breaking in. The police did not bother to go to the apartment until like 12 hours after the call (I am a bit fuzzy on the precise number, but was large) After all, if the police went right away they might have to actually confront a criminal. There was a lawsuit. The decision was that the police were to protect the 'group' and not the individual.

I have an NRA sticker on my bedroom window and back door. I figure they are better than any burgler alarm stickers.

not aware of any law enforcement agency in the country that garuentees a response time. and it's impossible to have enough officers to be able to respond at a moments notice to every crisis.

have you ever gone up against an armed criminal??? how excited would you be to do that?

as for the stickers in the window, it may make you feel safe, and may keep a few crooks away. but for the hardened criminal, all it does is advertise you have at least one firearm, which they wouldn't mind stealing.

[hnladue]

As a Coast Guard Auxilirist (sp) I can answer some of this. The good Samaritan Law goes NOT cover us. We are NOT trained to give first aid and they will not train us. (We are given basic first aid classes) Why?? Because of the Good Samartian law. We CAN be sued. They way I see it... if they DON"T give us the training (oxygen and CPR) then we cannot be held liable if someone is injured or dies. If the Good Samaritan Law covered us, we would get the training. So no we cannot be liable for giving first aid (unless your bleeding and a band-aid will cover it) but we WILL rescue ANYONE in distress INCLUDING divers. Are we required to rescue anyone?? No, but if we have the resources available and aren't already on another call, we will take up the rescue. This is one of the reasons the Auxiliary was formed. We assist the USCG in rescues (in fact we were first at the scene this summer in two accidents) and tow disabled boats. We cannot inforce the law but we can 'remind' people about it. This summer we saved 10 people who were in accidents. 5 of them were children. BTW our coasties here almost always have a licensed paramedic on board. The Auxiliary is aware of my training and I have completed Crew training so that I may assist in any issues that may arise.

[Sophia]

Actually, after-the-fact was not what was being referred to in that decision.  Althouth, that would be the logical interpretation. 

Two women were raped and tortured in their apartment for HOURS.  They had called the police WHILE the scum was breaking in.  The police did not bother to go to the apartment until like 12 hours after the call (I am a bit fuzzy on the precise number, but was large)  After all, if the police went right away they might have to actually confront a criminal.  There was a lawsuit.  The decision was that the police were to protect the 'group' and not the individual. 

I have an NRA sticker on my bedroom window and back door.  I figure they are better than any burgler alarm stickers.

not aware of any law enforcement agency in the country that garuentees a response time. and it's impossible to have enough officers to be able to respond at a moments notice to every crisis.

have you ever gone up against an armed criminal??? how excited would you be to do that?

as for the stickers in the window, it may make you feel safe, and may keep a few crooks away. but for the hardened criminal, all it does is advertise you have at least one firearm, which they wouldn't mind stealing.

While I did not expect any response time when I call the non-911 police number to say that someone, likely a kid, broke in and stole a few things the day before. I would expect an immediate response to a paniced, "Someone is breaking into my apartment right now!" Also, while I would not be 'excited' to go up against an armed criminal. My odds are a lot better, if I armed also. I am happy to trade the risk of having my gun stolen while I am not home, for the reduced risk of being raped.

Back to original topic, I have a vague memory of hearing somewhere (i.e. take what I say with a huge grain of salt) that if a Doctor or nurse seeing a car accident, pulls over to help and the victim dies anyway, the Doctor or nurse can't be sued. Wouldn't this apply to the Coast Guard too?

[BradfordNC]

While I did not expect any response time when I call the non-911 police number to say that someone, likely a kid, broke in and stole a few things the day before. I would expect an immediate response to a paniced, "Someone is breaking into my apartment right now!" Also, while I would not be 'excited' to go up against an armed criminal. My odds are a lot better, if I armed also. I am happy to trade the risk of having my gun stolen while I am not home, for the reduced risk of being raped.

Back to original topic, I have a vague memory of hearing somewhere (i.e. take what I say with a huge grain of salt) that if a Doctor or nurse seeing a car accident, pulls over to help and the victim dies anyway, the Doctor or nurse can't be sued. Wouldn't this apply to the Coast Guard too?

yeah, cops responding to violent crimes may be armed as well, but that doesn't mean they have the upper hand. being the one responding, and moving to a situation, your at a disadvantage, you don't know what your going to walk into. or who and how many are waiting for you, and what their intentions are.

and as far as them breaking in to your own house, yeah, its fine for them to break in and steal your firearms while your not home, but what if you are home?

and no, the obvious answer isn't, "well, then i'll shoot them."

i love getting this response from people who have never shot another human before, let alone pointed a loaded firearm at one.

one advantage violent criminals have over you is this, they have a history of violence against their fellow citizens, and have absolutely no problem directing it against you.

whats more, in such a situation, its pretty easy to tell who is or isn't comfortable with what is about to go down.

i'm not about to tell anyone to not own a firearm. anyone who knows me knows all about private firearms ownership, and i'm very rarely without one.

but the idea that just having or waving a firearm around is going to scare a violent criminal away is a technique known as "hope"

and if your using hope as a method, you better hope all the guy does is shove that firearm up your @$$ after he takes it out of your nervous, scared, jittery hands.


as for the good samaritan law, from what every MD has told me, it doesn't apply to them because they are professional medical personel and held to a higher standard.

have read several recent articles and have had MDs confirm that a lot of times, when they happen to come across a car accident, they keep on driving. they said that if they were to stop and help, they could be held liable for any death or further injury. the insurance that covers them in the hospital, doesn't cover them at a field site.

[WreckWench]

Ya know...our laws are so whacked out and screwed up. But then we've brought it upon ourselves. If we weren't the 'sue happy' society that we've become then a large part of this conversation would be moot.

As for the gun ownership...not sure I'm up for advertising that I own guns...but for those that know me...you know the answer to that already. And if you really know me then you know that I advocate ONLY owning and handling a gun if you are prepared to use it and are TRAINED to use it. And no I'm not talking about 'gun safety' here but rather training in shooting and managing a weapon. If you pull a weapon out...you NEED to be prepared to use it and better be using it by the time the bad guy realizes you've pulled a weapon on him/her. Otherwise Brad is right...they will have that weapon out of your hands before you know what hit you. Unfortunatley you will not like the next thing that usually hits you once they have YOUR weapon.

And women...if you do decide to own a gun for personal safety...then please go and take self defense courses, gun shooting classes and then go to the shooting range and practice, practice, practice. You need to not only practice firing a weapon but you also need to practice visualization techniques that show you retrieving your weapon, and USING your weapon. The time to think about whether you can pull the trigger or not, is when you make the decision to own a gun and NOT after you've pulled it out hoping to threaten someone. A gun in and of itself has NO deterrent effect in most circumstances anymore. It is only a deterrent if you plan to use it...are trained to use it...and then actually USE it.

Ok...enough about guns......


well at least for now! He!!! He!!!

[CaptSSII]

I hate to hear about diving accidents like this. Where I dive is about 150 miles from the nearest chamber and 100 miles of that is water. The Coast Guard in my part of the gulf do a very good job responding to dive related injuries. In a life threatening event, they will be there, day or night in any weather...Amen I have been fortunate over the years and have not needed their services but have witnessed them in action too many times.

As far as being liable, I guess they are fair game just like everyone else in todays world. I would like to think that they would do the best they could.

To get bent that bad took a lot of work on the part of the diver, doing all of the wrong things probably more than once. I always tried to keep my computer as happy as possible and have made a fair number of dives with no ill effects.

[Sophia]

but the idea that just having or waving a firearm around is going to scare a violent criminal away is a technique known as "hope"

and if your using hope as a method, you better hope all the guy does is shove that firearm up your @$$ after he takes it out of your nervous, scared, jittery hands.

We do agree there. I thought long and hard before getting one. If I thought I couldn't shoot and hit, I won't have one in the house. Don't want to provide the criminal with a gun to use on me. I've taken several gun classes and I practice at my parents gun club. I still think the criminal armed only with say a knife, has an advantage over me armed with a gun. The odds are just a little less skewed if I'm armed.

[H2Oaddict]

Welcome back - of course we missed you! Thanks for the news clip. Always good to know what's happening and to hear the different points of view!