Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

« Advice To Candy-Ass Reporters On How To Deal With Bullies | Main | Ben Carson: If You Live In the City, Maybe You Shouldn't Own a Semi-Automatic Weapon »
March 04, 2013

California Nursing Home Permits 87-Year-Old Woman To Die Rather Than Render Simple CPR, Because It's Their "Policy"

Oh, it's your policy? I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was your policy. Certainly if you have a "policy" you are justified in permitting a woman under your care to die without taking any action to help her at all.

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.


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 nursing home defended the inaction, claiming it was a "policy" that nurses should only call 911 and otherwise render no aid themselves.

Let's take a look at this.

First off, a "policy" exists to protect the institution promulgating that policy, not to help anyone else.

So when a company says "We're just following policy," they mean "We're just following a protocol we created to protect our own interests."

This is no kind of defense or justification. Yes, I know you were ruthlessly pursuing your own self-interest in permitting a woman to die. Having a "policy" about ruthlessly pursuing your own self-interest in permitting a woman to die doesn't sanctify that as a noble or even acceptable.

Saying "We have a policy" is just a euphemism for "We've collectively decided to look out for ourselves instead of others."

The other thing I get from this is how far we're going in this society to prioritize Inaction over Action. Of course the nursing home has this policy to protect itself from lawsuit -- the threat of lawsuits compels people to let people die in the street. Inaction -- letting someone die -- is a favored position, legally, over Action. If you Act, you may get sued. If you don't act, it's harder to get sued.

(Although in this case I think they'll discover they're damned either way, but the general point about Inaction being favored over Action still stands.)

Look at all the hurdles and obstacles the State puts in your way if you wish to start a simple business. The sort of business that 60 years ago no one thought you needed state permission to operate.

At every turn our society, through its laws, is transmitting the idea that Inaction -- and sloth, and reliance on the state, and acceptance of one's status, and fearing the consequences of action -- is preferred to Action.

You don't have to be an anthropologist to guess that when the state sets about at criminalizing most things and hyperregulating whatever's left, it creates an environment in which the average person begins with the presumption that I ought better not do that rather than the mindset our Founding Father gifted us with: I am free do do practically anything, save the few things which are obviously criminal.

And you don't have to be a conspiracist to notice this is exactly the sort of mindset the totalitarian state prefers in its citizens.

Bodies drained of blood cause no problems for the State, except for warehousing.

Compare to den Beste's posts noting that citizens are more and more required to seek permission of the State to do things they just should be able to do, and to offer a justification for simply exercising their freedoms.

At every turn, we're asked: How does it help society that you should be free to do this thing? And we have to offer some rationale wherein we increase the social good by having a freedom.

Does freedom really require a justification at every turn? Why does freedom require an affirmative defense, whereas prohibition -- the reduction of citizen freedom and the increase of power in the State -- is presumptively the correct position and wins on all ties?

Should the prohibitionists, not the freedom-seekers, be required to justify themselves, with the default assumption going to the freedom-seekers?

Dangerous, dark, dispiriting times.

It will not turn out well. (It never does, he added morosely.)

Via ‏@johnondrasik of Five For Fighting.

Please Excuse This Up-and-Down Post: I stomped on LauraW's strong post, so I wanted to give that time at the top, and now I'm recycling this back up to the top.

More: This kid has learned a valuable lesson. And that lesson is take no mirth in anything, do not do anything except what Teacher tells you you may do, and generally do absolutely nothing whatsoever, because doing things is a very risky proposition.

Via @dloesch

digg this
posted by Ace at 02:28 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Tonypete: " Is this the dick thread? Posted by: Sandra Flook ..."

DB: ">It used to be legal in certain parts of rural Eng ..."

Sandra Flook: "Is this the dick thread? ..."

Tonypete: "Every time I get stuck in traffic I wonder if all ..."

Cicero (@cicero43): "[i]It used to be legal in certain parts of rural E ..."

lin-duh: "there a CPT code for Nerf Football in Ass? Posted ..."

Diogenes: "A friend of mine was a commercial fishermen... on ..."

Javems: "22 Wait. Everybody but me has a vivid and complex ..."

Kindltot: "[i]"Scrotum Self-Repair", by William A. Morton, Jr ..."

Dr. Bone: "I got a cure for the 23 emotions out here where it ..."

All Hail Eris, Sans-Culottes (except for the Book Thread): "132 130 Every time the Doctor would walk by the gu ..."

Rodrigo Borgia: "> That was part of the story in "The Mayor of Cast ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64