A California retirement home is backing one of its nurses after she refused desperate pleas from a 911 operator to perform CPR on an elderly woman who later died, saying the nurse was following the facility’s policy.
“Is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die,” dispatcher Tracey Halvorson says on a 911 tape released by the Bakersfield Fire Department aired by several media outlets on Sunday.
“Not at this time,” said the nurse, who didn’t give her full name and said facility policy prevented her from giving the woman medical help.
At the beginning of the 7-minute, 16-second call on Tuesday morning, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the 87-year-old woman who had collapsed in the home’s dining room and was barely breathing.
Halvorson pleads for the nurse to perform CPR, and after several refusals she starts pleading for her to find a resident, or a gardener, or anyone not employed by the home to get on the phone, take her instructions and help the woman.
“Can we flag someone down in the street and get them to help this lady?” Halvorson says on the call. “Can we flag a stranger down? I bet a stranger would help her.”
The woman was later declared dead at Mercy Southwest Hospital, officials said.
The executive director of Glenwood Gardens, Jeffrey Toomer, defended the nurse’s actions, saying she did indeed follow policy.
“In the event of a health emergency at this independent living community our practice is to immediately call emergency medical personnel for assistance and to wait with the individual needing attention until such personnel arrives,” Toomer said in a written statement. “That is the protocol we followed.”
Toomer offered condolences to the woman’s family and said a “thorough internal review” of the incident would be conducted.
He told KGET-TV that residents of the home’s independent living community are informed of the policy and agree to it when they move in. He said the policy does not apply at the adjacent assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.
A county official also said the dispatcher followed general protocols when she pleaded with the nurse to perform CPR.
Kern County Fire Department spokesman Sean Collins says Halvorson, who is an experienced dispatcher and has worked for the county center for at least a decade, had more passion in her voice than normal during the call because she thought she was talking with a registered nurse who was refusing to save the woman’s life.
A call to the facility by The Associated Press seeking more information was not immediately returned.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
Classic America. Dumb liberals don’t have minds of their own, cant think out of the box. This would not have happened in Saudi Arabia, China or Israel in a million years. Same reason the BMW driver was driving even though he murdered someone before, had a DWI a month ago… Messed up legal and brain society.
I bet part of this facility’s policy is to freeze the patient after death for six months while collecting from medicare and S.S. and they can get away with it because it’s “policy”.
etc. etc.
Outrageous!!!
They should change the name from “assisted living” to “assisted murder”!
Boycott this place!
What is this, Sodom? Protocol overrules saving someone’s life?! Ridiculous!
Death panels in action
Its not only in America. In England there was a case recently where Two Police Officers did not intervene to stop a 10-year-old boy from drowning because they were “not trained” to deal with the incident. They stood at the edge of a pond as the boy got into trouble trying to rescue his eight-year-old step-sister. Two fishermen in their 60s jumped in and managed to save the girl, but the officers, who arrived at the scene shortly afterwards, did not attempt a rescue, deciding to wait until trained officers arrived.
Factors for shev v’al ta’aseh:
1) The elderly woman was already dead, so it is not comparable to what one need do for those who are still alive.
2)The added factor is where the treatment itself is extremely painful. Chest compression is extremely violent; in the elderly and frail, it cracks ribs already with the first compression. By the end, all the ribs will likely be cracked and likely the sternum.
3)It is not only the treatment that is painful, but its aftermath, as the ribs will likely not heal and the patient will be in agony with each breath, for the rest of their life.
4)There is a difference between treatment that effects a cure and one which does not. In the case at hand, the woman died before and will die again, probably of pneumonia, after a stretch of having a tube down her throat for the remainder of what will be left of her life.
One need not know the patient’s wishes, as the majority of normal people would not want this.
Shlomo -Your whole post is absurd. Right now in the US the policy is to do CPR unless there is a DNR paper from the pt’s doctor. The benefits outweigh the risks!
The reason the independent living facilities all over the country have this policy is simply because of our crazy laws -regarding suing anyone and everyone. The people who write the laws in this country have blood on their hands.
The NJ legislature just passed another law protecting Vol. ambulances from lawsuits. If they understand the need to protect people who mean well – how come they don’t understand the need to protect nurses or any other medical prof. who mean well? This is just another stain on America’s coat. But blame the companies -since we won’t blame our politicians who we voted into office!
Shlomo2, why do you say that she was already dead? The article says that she was “barely breathing”, not that she wasn’t breathing at all. Did you miss that point, or do you have some other information?
Health:
Thank you for calling my post absurd.
Your review of the politics behind the law is fascinating indeed.
However, please explain why shev v’al ta’aseh does not apply in this case.
My arguments remain, even if this woman was barely breathing and not already dead.
You say that the benefits outweigh the risk.
It is not a risk that the frail and elderly will have their ribs cracked by CPR, it is a certainty.
If you think that having to spend the rest of one’s life in agony, heavily sedated and intubated until finally dying of pnneumonia is a benefit, that’s fine, but halachic assumptions go al pi rov — and rov would not want this.
Although it’s true that the law might demand CPR in certain cases, that does not mean that this is what the halacha is.
Shlomo – While I’m not a Poisek -just a Med Prof -I’ll still try to explain it to you.
Since CPR sometimes saves peoples’ lives -you are Mechuyav to do it, even on a Sofek. Not doing it you are Oiver – Lo Saamod Al Daam Rayech. The fact that damage occurs does not matter in Halacha because saving lives takes precedence over other things because it says V’chai Bohem. I think this is correct -if you have any more questions -ask your LOR!
Health —
Thank you for trying to explain the relevant halacha to me. And thank you for your suggestion that I discuss this with my LOR.
Your summary is consistent with what many people believe, but is not consistent with my understanding of what is held by authoritative poskim.
When you say that saving lives always takes precedence, this is simply not true.
By that measure, dying patients would be obligated to endure endless surgeries that will do nothing to cure them of their disease, but will simply add to their pain and prolong the dying process.
No dying patient is obligated to accept treatment that will cause them great pain but not change the course of their underlying disease.
Unless we are told otherwise, we can rely upon the rov — and the rov would not wish to spend the rest of their life in agony, heavily sedated and intubated until finally dying of pnneumonia.
Since the rov would not consider this a benefit and have the halachic right to refuse this type of treatment, there is no mitzvah to impose this on them.
Shlomo 2 says: “Your summary is consistent with what many people believe, but is not consistent with my understanding of what is held by authoritative poskim.”
Name these Poiskim.
“When you say that saving lives always takes precedence, this is simply not true.
By that measure, dying patients would be obligated to endure endless surgeries that will do nothing to cure them of their disease, but will simply add to their pain and prolong the dying process.
No dying patient is obligated to accept treatment that will cause them great pain but not change the course of their underlying disease.”
This is a general rule that Poiskim who deal with DNR’s sometimes deal with. A DNR decision can only be made together with the Docs and Poiskim who deal with these issues.
“Unless we are told otherwise, we can rely upon the rov — and the rov would not wish to spend the rest of their life in agony, heavily sedated and intubated until finally dying of pnneumonia.
Since the rov would not consider this a benefit and have the halachic right to refuse this type of treatment, there is no mitzvah to impose this on them.”
This is where we differ in opinions. Yes, there is such a thing as a Halachic DNR, but where you got the idea that this applies to all old people regarding CPR is beyond me.
As far as I know, there is Not one Poisek who disagrees with this regarding CPR in a regular case, just because they are old. Please name the Poisek or Poiskim who you claim said Not to resuscitate an old person and I will call them up. 1. I don’t believe such a Rabbi exists.
2. If s/o does hold such a thing, I believe they are making a grave mistake in their Psak!