Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Lifeguard fired for trying to save life

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Lifeguard fired for trying to save life
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:52 PM
LJ;1219010 wrote:If he is actively treating someone or in the water, no, it doesn't.
I'd rather have a lifeguard treating someone or in the water right near me than 1500 feet away, ceteris paribus.
Jul 5, 2012 12:52pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:52 PM
hasbeen;1219012 wrote:He put his "zone" in greater danger because less people covering the same area isn't as safe as having the correct number of lifeguards. And he put his entire "zone" in danger by not protecting it. That "zone" is populated by people who knowingly went somewhere they would be protected.

Again, I'm with o-trap in saying I don't think the man did the wrong thing. But I don't think the company did either.
Then it's a danger for them to help anyone.
Jul 5, 2012 12:52pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:53 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219019 wrote:I'd rather have a lifeguard treating someone or in the water right near me than 1500 feet away, ceteris paribus.
Why, it wouldn't make any difference.
Jul 5, 2012 12:53pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:54 PM
LJ;1219017 wrote:He can only help one person at a time. I think that is the whole point you are missing.
Not missing it at all. If he'd gone out, and the guy had gotten to a point where he was okay (ie, it didn't turn out to be as serious as he'd initially thought), he wouldn't have needed to help anyone over there, but it might take him more time to get back than a drowning person for whom he was responsible might be comfortable with.
Jul 5, 2012 12:54pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:55 PM
LJ;1219018 wrote: can tell you with 100% certainty that those EMT's and officers will not be disciplined.
Many of them are permitted to do so. The lifeguard was not.
Jul 5, 2012 12:55pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:58 PM
LJ;1219018 wrote: can tell you with 100% certainty that those EMT's and officers will not be disciplined.
Apple and oranges. Move on.
Jul 5, 2012 12:58pm
hasbeen's avatar

hasbeen

Excuse me, Flo?

6,504 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:59 PM
LJ;1219017 wrote:He can only help one person at a time. I think that is the whole point you are missing.
LJ;1219020 wrote:Then it's a danger for them to help anyone.
LJ;1219023 wrote:Why, it wouldn't make any difference.
A situation where multiple people were in the water drowning being closer in vicinity would be helpful.
I don't know the lifeguard policy, but I bet the first step is always getting them out of the water.
Jul 5, 2012 12:59pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 12:59 PM
Steel Valley Football;1219027 wrote:Apple and oranges. Move on.
You're just mad because it answered the question of "according to whom"
Jul 5, 2012 12:59pm
S

Steel Valley Football

Senior Member

4,548 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:00 PM
LJ;1219023 wrote:Why, it wouldn't make any difference.

But, it could. That's the whole point of the boundary.
Jul 5, 2012 1:00pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:01 PM
O-Trap;1219025 wrote:Many of them are permitted to do so. The lifeguard was not.
And now we have circled all the way back to the point that it is a stupid policy that goes against what the duty of a lifeguard actually is.
Jul 5, 2012 1:01pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:01 PM
hasbeen;1219029 wrote:A situation where multiple people were in the water drowning being closer in vicinity would be helpful.
I don't know the lifeguard policy, but I bet the first step is always getting them out of the water.
So then you have people running in from other distant areas to help with the mass drowning, creating the same situation you are arguing against.
Jul 5, 2012 1:01pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:03 PM
LJ;1219034 wrote:And now we have circled all the way back to the point that it is a stupid policy that goes against what the duty of a lifeguard actually is.
Where did I say the EMT policy was better? I just said they wouldn't get fired or disciplined.

EDIT: But if my house burned down, and family was injured, and the EMT from my own community could have helped if they were not in another one, I wouldn't think such a policy for them was stupid at all.
Jul 5, 2012 1:03pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:04 PM
O-Trap;1219037 wrote:Where did I say the EMT policy was better? I just said they wouldn't get fired or disciplined.
Never said you did, just saying that we have completely circled all the way back to the beginning.
Jul 5, 2012 1:04pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:04 PM
LJ;1219034 wrote:And now we have circled all the way back to the point that it is a stupid policy that goes against what the duty of a lifeguard actually is.
The lifeguard holds responsibility of a certain area the company is paid to serve in. They don't hold some hippocratic type oath in having a duty for all people no matter where they need the help at.
Jul 5, 2012 1:04pm
hasbeen's avatar

hasbeen

Excuse me, Flo?

6,504 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:04 PM
LJ;1219036 wrote:So then you have people running in from other distant areas to help with the mass drowning, creating the same situation you are arguing against.
But the people who are in danger within the company's protection will be taken care of. If I die because I went to a beach that was protected had a lifeguard leave his post, I would write a very nasty letter from hell.

Nobody is disagreeing with you saying the policy is wrong, we're just saying that person took his own risk by entering an unprotected section of the beach.
Jul 5, 2012 1:04pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:05 PM
Not sure why people seem to have to simplify every situation into black and white. There are several shades of gray here, and no true villain, not even the "evil" corporation.
Jul 5, 2012 1:05pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:07 PM
hasbeen;1219042 wrote:we're just saying that person took his own risk by entering an unprotected section of the beach.
I have never addressed that point.
Jul 5, 2012 1:07pm
hasbeen's avatar

hasbeen

Excuse me, Flo?

6,504 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:08 PM
LJ;1219045 wrote:I have never addressed that point.
Then you are ignoring a significant part of the situation.
Jul 5, 2012 1:08pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:09 PM
Con_Alma;1219041 wrote:The lifeguard holds responsibility of a certain area the company is paid to serve in. They don't hold some hippocratic type oath in having a duty for all people no matter where they need the help at.
Just because there is no legal oath means that a trained and certified person has no duty to help someone in immediate danger?
Jul 5, 2012 1:09pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:10 PM
hasbeen;1219048 wrote:Then you are ignoring a significant part of the situation.
I understand where he was, but that's like saying "you should understand that building is in the county not the nearby city, so response time is 20 minutes vs the city 5 minutes away. If you die, it's your fault."
Jul 5, 2012 1:10pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:10 PM
LJ;1219050 wrote:Just because there is no legal oath means that a trained and certified person has no duty to help someone in immediate danger?
I think morally we all do, if able. I don't think we have a duty to especially when there's a company policy defining their obligations.
Jul 5, 2012 1:10pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:11 PM
LJ;1219050 wrote:Just because there is no legal oath means that a trained and certified person has no duty to help someone in immediate danger?
I contend that it does, particularly when one must weigh the safety of the people he is directly responsible for against the immediate danger to someone he is not responsible for.
Jul 5, 2012 1:11pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:12 PM
O-Trap;1219037 wrote:EDIT: But if my house burned down, and family was injured, and the EMT from my own community could have helped if they were not in another one, I wouldn't think such a policy for them was stupid at all.
When my appendix almost burst, the EMT's from the next township over came and got me because my EMT's were in a different township. They all help each other out. They don't follow strict boundries.
Jul 5, 2012 1:12pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:13 PM
Con_Alma;1219052 wrote:I think morally we all do, if able. I don't think we have a duty to especially when there's a company policy defining their obligations.
O-Trap;1219053 wrote:I contend that it does, particularly when one must weigh the safety of the people he is directly responsible for against the immediate danger to someone he is not responsible for.
And I wholeheartedly disagree. Why do we have to keep rehashing the same thing we did 30 posts ago?
Jul 5, 2012 1:13pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jul 5, 2012 1:14 PM
LJ;1219050 wrote:Just because there is no legal oath means that a trained and certified person has no duty to help someone in immediate danger?
Does having a duty negate all other accountability? Doing the right thing can still have costs associated with it.
Jul 5, 2012 1:14pm