EMT refuses to help dying woman because she is on coffee break gets off scott free

[Indofred]

Hang on.
A woman with a serious, life threatening medical condition got pregnant.
Was that responsible?

She had asthma. People with asthma are quite capable of bearing a child.

The evidence, as suggested by her rotting corpse, suggests that may not be accurate in this case.

 

[Kondor3]

"...After further investigation the charges were dropped..."

By the look of it, the only 'further investigation' that was undertaken (beyond the facts established by the people witnessing the scene) was that a FDNY EMS official checked with his Legal Dept, then wrote to the DA's office that he did not believe the Walking-Away rule applied to dispatchers and others not actively assigned to an ambulance or special event.

With FDNY support for the charges evaporating, the DA dropped the charges; because of a loophole in departmental rules that would allow the perp to walk-away scot-free after all.

None of that represents a change-of-fact as a result of 'further investigation'.

"...You are willing to condemn on only the sketchiest information (that might or might not be factual) without any sort of investigation..."

These are the facts of the case:

1. a pregnant woman with asthma was suffering from an asthma attack at a sandwich shop.

2. a licensed EMT, off-duty and ill-equipped, walked into that very establishment.

3. the EMT was asked to help the woman in distress.

4. the EMT made a phone call to 9-11, then resumed her coffee break, and talking with her boyfriend.

5. the EMT did not even do so much as visit the scene around-back to evaluate the situation.

6. the EMT was brought-up on charges of Walking Away, but, upon reflection, the FDNY found a loophole in its rules that made prosecution impossible, and the EMT walked-away scot-free.

If you dispute any of these established facts, this would be the time and place.

"...Ever hear of due process?"

Ever hear of a wrong-doer being set free by the law?

First, please understand that the Court of Public Opinion does not require 'due process'.

People, armed with the facts, are perfectly capable of making-up their own minds as to the Right or Wrong of an incident.

Second, being set free on a Technicality (Loophole) about whether one is on-the-streets or sitting behind a desk, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most folks, and cheats everyone of the 'due process' that should have been applied to the case.

Third, the callous, flippant, seemingly arrogant attitude of The Accused does not serve her well, in pleading her case.

Your 'medical colleague' may very well have gotten-off scot-free.

But good people everywhere bristle with indignation over this case and its causes and its outcome.

Your colleague failed to act like a decent human being who was better-trained to handle the situation than any of the others on-site at the time.

Your colleague failed to act like a decent human being.

And, if there is any justice in the universe, she will be a pariah in the FDNY or any other place where right-thinking and humane EMT folk know to shun such a loathsome and sorry excuse for a human being.

You have The Law on your side, on this one, Doc.

But you may very well not have Right and Humanity on your side, on this one.

And that, my good colleague, turns this into one helluva Tough Sell.

Given how badly she's smeared the Profession, she may very well not be worth the effort.

But that's your choice, not mine.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Those are the "facts", why? Because they can't put anything that isn't true on the internet? Do you also date a French model as in the TV ad?You have every right to your opinion no matter how ill-informed and counterproductive and so do I.

 

[Kondor3]

"Those are the "facts", why? Because they can't put anything that isn't true on the internet? Do you also date a French model as in the TV ad? You have every right to your opinion no matter how ill-informed and counterproductive and so do I.

Those are the facts because they have been reported by a wide variety of reputable news agencies, drawn from eyewitness accounts, and those eyewitness accounts have not been disputed nor challenged by The Accused nor her attorney in the four years since the incident occurred, nor even after the case was dismissed recently and they became more free to talk about the case.

Do you have 'probable cause' for suspecting that those are NOT the facts of the case?

Would you care to dispute one or more of those facts yourself?

You may proceed, at your discretion.

However, be aware, that, failing to mount a successful challenge to those facts, your advocacy for your professional kindred - your colleague, so-to-speak - takes a turn for the worse, and pretty much tanks at the bottom of the Consensus Scale.

All of this other 'chatter' about truth on the Internet and models and the like is fluff - delaying or stalling or deflecting or dodging tactics - and you know that as well as I do.

I know that it's difficult to defend a Sorry-Ass Excuse for a Human Being, and you've done a good yoeman's job of that, as best you could, for a while here, and I, for one, admire both your tenacity and your skill in holding the fort nearly single-handed.

But the truth of the matter is that your Girl got-off lucky on a Loophole and that she's going to be a Pariah for her callous disregard for human life and welfare.

Time to jump off that Defense Bandwagon while you still can, Doc, but that's your choice.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nice try but the important fact of this matter is that the EMT was investigated and all charges of wrongdoing were dropped. You are the one trying to dispute those findings so any burden of proof is on you. And, no, you haven't made a case except in your own mind.

Second, being set free on a Technicality (Loophole) about whether one is on-the-streets or sitting behind a desk, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most folks, and cheats everyone of the 'due process' that should have been applied to the case.

Due process is what it is and it is no less so because you disagree with the findings.

Third, the callous, flippant, seemingly arrogant attitude of The Accused does not serve her well, in pleading her case.

Your 'medical colleague' may very well have gotten-off scot-free.

But good people everywhere bristle with indignation over this case and its causes and its outcome.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that she is no longer "pleading her case" nor is she "The Accused". She has already proven anything she needed to. And I certainly don't think you can speak for "good people everywhere". Tell the truth-you got that line out of a Batman comic didn't you?

 

[Kondor3]

"Nice try but the important fact of this matter is that the EMT was investigated and all charges of wrongdoing were dropped..."

You continue to dwell exclusively upon legal technicalities...

And you refuse to engage in conversation relating to the facts of the case...

Your pronouncement that your Girl got-off scot-free and that that is the ONLY important fact rings hollow, and seems reminiscent of a shell-game or parlor-trick rather than facing the challenge head-on and disproving one of more salient facts of the case...

In light of such tactics, I'm obliged to judge that you are incapable of refuting the previously outlined facts of the case...

Your inability to argue the facts of the case in favor of your client and your resorting to the parlor trick of belaboring current status are well-noted...

Moving on...

You also continue to evade ethical and moral and humanitarian considerations...

No one disputes the State's inability to prosecute due to existing guidelines...

Very large numbers of people (myself included) dispute the woman's ethical and moral and humanitarian conduct, based upon the choices she made that day...

Those who DO dispute those choices have long-since conceded that your Girl got off on a loophole or legal technicality...

But getting off on a legal technicality does NOT get her off the hook with respect to ethical or moral or humanitarian choices...

Try joining the conversation from that angle, if you're up to the challenge...

If you are not up to the challenge than you have nothing to add to the conversation, from an ethics or morality or humanitarian perspective... which is where the conversation has been at from Page One...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nice try but the important fact of this matter is that the EMT was investigated and all charges of wrongdoing were dropped. You are the one trying to dispute those findings so any burden of proof is on you. And, no, you haven't made a case except in your own mind.

Second, being set free on a Technicality (Loophole) about whether one is on-the-streets or sitting behind a desk, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most folks, and cheats everyone of the 'due process' that should have been applied to the case.

Due process is what it is and it is no less so because you disagree with the findings.

Third, the callous, flippant, seemingly arrogant attitude of The Accused does not serve her well, in pleading her case.

Your 'medical colleague' may very well have gotten-off scot-free.

But good people everywhere bristle with indignation over this case and its causes and its outcome.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that she is no longer "pleading her case" nor is she "The Accused". She has already proven anything she needed to. And I certainly don't think you can speak for "good people everywhere". Tell the truth-you got that line out of a Batman comic didn't you?

The important thing is not that the EMT got off, the important thing is that a woman who needed help died.

 

[Wyatt earp]

the bottom line the ***** will be hated by her coworkers for putting shame on them she may as well quit her job and go flip burgers at micky D's and the story will get out again.at her new job. she wont get away with this they never do.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nice try but the important fact of this matter is that the EMT was investigated and all charges of wrongdoing were dropped. You are the one trying to dispute those findings so any burden of proof is on you. And, no, you haven't made a case except in your own mind.

Second, being set free on a Technicality (Loophole) about whether one is on-the-streets or sitting behind a desk, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of most folks, and cheats everyone of the 'due process' that should have been applied to the case.

Due process is what it is and it is no less so because you disagree with the findings.

Third, the callous, flippant, seemingly arrogant attitude of The Accused does not serve her well, in pleading her case.

Your 'medical colleague' may very well have gotten-off scot-free.

But good people everywhere bristle with indignation over this case and its causes and its outcome.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that she is no longer "pleading her case" nor is she "The Accused". She has already proven anything she needed to. And I certainly don't think you can speak for "good people everywhere". Tell the truth-you got that line out of a Batman comic didn't you?

The important thing is not that the EMT got off, the important thing is that a woman who needed help died.

Wrong. The important thing is that she was investigated by those competent to judge her actions and wrongdoing was not found. If someone knows of something she could have done that might have kept that woman alive, why hasn't it been mentioned?