Lifeguard fired for doing his job

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by Wondercow

It seems that you're being purposefully obtuse. You've taken a portion of a question of a hypothetical situation and mashed it into a place in a real situation where it dos not belong. By your logic (as displayed above) if the closest victim was fifteen minutes away across the bay then it would be proper for the guard to go to that victim. You're not seriously suggesting such a thing, are you?


I'm not forgetting anything. And a lifeguard is not supposed to help anyone, anywhere while on duty. Take, for example, the situation of an indoor pool enclosed within glass walls. The lifeguard sees someone on the outer side drop to the ground for no apparent reason. What do you think the lifeguard should do? What if the guard is the only person staffing the pool? What if there is a backup guard on off-rotation in the office? What if the other person is the pool manager but he's gone off the recreational complex office to finish some photocopies? (This is one of the many hypothetical question I pose to my candidates when we discuss "lifeguarding and the law" and "Lifeguarding ethics").


Yes it does. We have policy and procedure for a reason. We have standards for a reason. We have certification bodies and international conferences on standards, procedures, statistics, and best practices for a reason.

What you suggest isn't logic. It's emotional. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but you're approaching this situation from the latter, while claiming the former.


A silly rule to you. Do know why the rule is in place? Do you have any experience lifeguarding? Have you ever studied the theory of lifeguarding, or the practice of lifeguarding? Do you have any idea of why a lifeguard may need kick a victim in the chest or face (this one I ask simply because it is also something that seems "logical" and "simple" that a lifeguard would never do)?



He may have acted correctly if he waited for cover from his adjacent guard; however, you seem ill-qualified to make such a blanket conclusion.

I'm done arguing with you, me and everyone else see your side as wrong. Common sense sees your side as wrong.

You can think you're right, and thats your opinion but in my opinion a life guard failing to act is a ****** life guard and I think everyone else would agree.

Not to mention your rule doesn't seem to be a rule at all, a quick google shows many cases where companies leave it up to the discretion of the lifeguard of where to save someone. Like here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ey-sit/1238911

Glad to see that place uses common sense.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by jav6454

Triage is not the same here. Triage focuses limited medical resources (staff, supplies) on the worst cases first.

I would think it is the same. In each case you have limited staff, and you are prioritizing who that staff focuses on. Also, in medical triage, I don't think it's necessarily true that the worst cases get seen 1st. I'm not in that field, but I recall reading that you don't tie up all your staff for multiple hours, and expend all your supplies, treating the one "worst case" if that means that the other "not so bad" cases are then put at risk. Sometimes triage - iirc - means making decision to not treat the worst case.

Originally Posted by jav6454

Levels of jurisdiction are also a different level.

Lots of fire departments won't cross outside their jurisdictions - unless there is a mutual aid agreement in place - to put out a fire. Unless that fire has the risk of spreading into their area. Locally, one of our volunteer Search and Rescue teams has informed the province that they will no longer respond to accidents on the highway (they would respond to help the volunteer fire department with traffic control and extrication if necessary. The volume of calls to car accidents on the highway was burning them out, and depleting their staffing and other resources. So they decided - with much regret - that the highway was a provincial priority and that they needed to concentrate on local SAR duties.

Originally Posted by jav6454

We are talking about a drowning man. Jurisdictions and triage are not at play here, so it is pointless to compare them both.

Of course they are the same. Resources only go so far. In the case of the lifeguard, the "resource" was that one lifeguard and any on-duty that happened to be available. The lifeguard made a decision based on their knowledge of their judgement of situation, and whether the resources available (himself and the back-up guard) could extend that far.

I am glad wondercow has continued to contribute to this discussion, as we are just a bunch of arm-chair amateurs. I have a vicarious exposure to public policy decision making, but not on this life-and-death level... so I've found it interesting.

[RLesko]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I'm done arguing with you, me and everyone else see your side as wrong. Common sense sees your side as wrong.

You can think you're right, and thats your opinion but in my opinion a life guard failing to act is a ****** life guard and I think everyone else would agree.

Not to mention your rule doesn't seem to be a rule at all, a quick google shows many cases where companies leave it up to the discretion of the lifeguard of where to save someone. Like here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ey-sit/1238911

Glad to see that place uses common sense.

Don't speak for everyone. You are one person, entitled to your own opinion. I 100% agree with Wondercow, having previously been a lifeguard for 4 years spanning from high school to college. I'm not nearly as credible as Wondercow, but maybe you should try to understand the view of the people who have or had the qualifications at some point in their life.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by RLesko

Don't speak for everyone. You are one person, entitled to your own opinion. I 100% agree with Wondercow, having previously been a lifeguard for 4 years spanning from high school to college. I'm not nearly as credible as Wondercow, but maybe you should try to understand the view of the people who have or had the qualifications at some point in their life.

So, then you would literally watch someone drown because they were not in your zone?

I understand the "qualifications" you talk about. I understand "rules" and "policy". I understand "lawsuit potential". But literally watching someone die when you have the trained ability to help, but don't because your policy says not to, is sickening.

And I get the "if it was your child who drowned in the zone, because the lifeguard was helping someone not in the zone"...you'd have to step back and say "he was helping save someone, and can't be two places at once". In the same way, what if two people in the zone 50' away from each other drowned at the same time? What if the one he couldn't help was yours. There's no way that policy can cover every decision with a perfect outcome.

Whatever...I don't agree with what Wondercow says, whether or not he has years of qualification or has written papers on the subject. Well, I guess I should say...I get what he's saying, I just think it's a terrible approach.

[Wondercow]

Originally Posted by snberk103

You actually strengthen Wondercow's point, I believe. I'm not a lifeguard, but Wondercow has made the issue clear... to me at least ... with their clear explanation.

How far should a lifeguard go outside their zone? Is 1 metre too far (assuming clear and defined boundary) or would everybody just overlook that? Two metres? Ten metres? Would you mind if the lifeguard helped someone drowning 10 metres outside their zone, but on the beach? What if it was a heart attack 10 metres outside the zone - but across the street behind the beach? Should the lifeguard leave the beach entirely if it's just 10 metres? How about 5 blocks off the beach? Should a lifeguard run 5 blocks off the beach to save someone drowning in their pool?

The article states he ran a quarter of a mile down the beach. So I picked a random beach in Miami Beach and measured from the middle of the beach into the city (assuming his station was somewhere on the beach). I counted 5 blocks from the edge of the park behind the beach (assuming the park might have been in his zone). Is that too far? Same distance outside the zone, just a different direction.

So... the rule was made simple so that a lifeguard doesn't have to make that kind of "how far is too far?" judgement call in the heat of the crisis.

So... overall I think the lifeguard did the right thing. He didn't leave his zone, until it was covered. Then he ran to see if he could help. Then he didn't freak out when he got fired, 'cause he knew the rules. He either probably already has another job offer from another beach - or he decided lifeguarding doesn't pay nearly well enough for the kinds of decisions he's expected to make.

The other thing to remember is that people's lives are begin protected on this beach by the lowest bidder.

Very well said; this is an excellent summary. And an excellent final point--in Toronto our pool guards are paid much more than these waterfront guards (I believe, in fact, that our wading pool guards are paid more).

[Wondercow]

Originally Posted by LethalWolfe

It's an unfortunate by product of living in such a litigious society. I'd bet dollars to donuts that stupid CYA rules are largely a reaction to stupid lawsuits.

They usually are--either that or preventative against stupid lawsuits.

I once worked a person who had to cut a leather motorcycle jacket off of a man who was VSA (vital signs absent). He had had a heart attack and for CPR to be most effective it needs to be done skin-to-skin. (We don't mess around with trying to undo zippers, buckles, snaps, etc.; we just get the trauma shears and in a few seconds the obstructive clothing is gone.) Thanks to the efforts of my co-worker the man survived... and sued for the destruction of his jacket.

He was admonished by the judge in a motion to dismiss, but still--the very fact that he tried is just wrong.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally Posted by Wondercow

Thanks to the efforts of my co-worker the man survived... and sued for the destruction of his jacket.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by RLesko

Don't speak for everyone. You are one person, entitled to your own opinion. I 100% agree with Wondercow, having previously been a lifeguard for 4 years spanning from high school to college. I'm not nearly as credible as Wondercow, but maybe you should try to understand the view of the people who have or had the qualifications at some point in their life.

Qualifications do not matter if someone is so stupid not to save someones life because they are "outside of the zone". People without a reasonable judgement capacity shouldn't be lifeguarding.

If you were the drowning swimmer you wouldn't be happy if you saw a lifeguard watch you and do nothing because you were out of his zone.

Common sense should triumph in these situations and I shouldn't even be having arguments like this. A decent human being would act. Luckily this lifeguard did and the guy he helped save has a life to look forward to and the lifeguard doesn't have to live with a death on his hands the rest of his life.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Qualifications do not matter if someone is so stupid not to save someones life because they are "outside of the zone". People without a reasonable judgement capacity shouldn't be lifeguarding.

If you were the drowning swimmer you wouldn't be happy if you saw a lifeguard watch you and do nothing because you were out of his zone.

Common sense should triumph in these situations and I shouldn't even be having arguments like this. A decent human being would act. Luckily this lifeguard did and the guy he helped save has a life to look forward to and the lifeguard doesn't have to live with a death on his hands the rest of his life.

In the case we are talking about, the lifeguard had to run 1500 hundred feet, a quarter mile, 4/10ths of a kilometre - away from the people he was supposed to be watching. In this case he didn't leave until his zone was covered, which implies that he believed that he couldn't go help a drowning person until the people he was supposed be protecting - in his zone - were adequate protected. His actions might also imply that if he hadn't been able to get someone to cover his zone, he may not have gone to the distressed person's aid.

----

Additional Comment: With respect, there is a reason why these policy decisions should be left to trained qualified experts - and not to others, such as yourself, who merely have "common sense" to guide them.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by jav6454

Triage is not the same here. Triage focuses limited medical resources (staff, supplies) on the worst cases first.

Not necessarily limited.

Our local hospital, not "limited" by any measure, has a couple of triage nurses, to work within the classic meaning of the word.

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by snberk103

In the case we are talking about, the lifeguard had to run 1500 hundred feet, a quarter mile, 4/10ths of a kilometre - away from the people he was supposed to be watching. In this case he didn't leave until his zone was covered, which implies that he believed that he couldn't go help a drowning person until the people he was supposed be protecting - in his zone - were adequate protected. His actions might also imply that if he hadn't been able to get someone to cover his zone, he may not have gone to the distressed person's aid.

----

Additional Comment: With respect, there is a reason why these policy decisions should be left to trained qualified experts - and not to others, such as yourself, who merely have "common sense" to guide them.

I think you better reread the article then comment.

First, you write this: "In this case he didn't leave until his zone was covered, which implies that he believed that he couldn't go help a drowning person until the people he was supposed be protecting - in his zone - were adequate protected."

But the article says this: "Mr. Lopez said he was aware of the rule before he set off running but chose to disregard it, fearing that the person would drown in the few minutes that he waited for his supervisor to show up."

That implies that he didn't wait for someone to show up, hence why he got fired.

That also completely nullifies your second point which was this:
"His actions might also imply that if he hadn't been able to get someone to cover his zone, he may not have gone to the distressed person's aid."

Did you even read the article?


As for the snarky "common sense" remark, I'm glad I and most other posters on here have it. I'm glad the life guard had it, and I'm glad this story had a happy outcome because of it.

You can choose to follow dumb rules that can get people killed but I'm sure glad this lifeguard didn't. He did what he was trained to do which was save lives.


Seriously I can't fathom that some of you are trying to say this guy did the wrong thing. Unbelievable.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

Seriously I can't fathom that some of you are trying to say this guy did the wrong thing. Unbelievable.

Who said that?

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

Who said that?

Anyway this had a happy ending and the guy who's life was saved was very thankful.

Even the CEO of the lifeguarding company agreed the lifeguard did the right thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/flo...?iref=obinsite

[einmusiker]

I HATE lawyers

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by einmusiker

I HATE lawyers

Always remember, even carrion have their place in the World.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

I think you better reread the article then comment.

First, you write this: "In this case he didn't leave until his zone was covered, which implies that he believed that he couldn't go help a drowning person until the people he was supposed be protecting - in his zone - were adequate protected."

I had read a different version of the story that said that he had called his supervisor, who was not available, so he called the lifeguard in the next zone to cover his zone. The rule, in the version I read, that he broke was not waiting for the supervisor to arrive. Note that he did not just leave his post, he made two calls first. From the story that is quoted in the OP: "A fellow lifeguard who was down the beach began to supervise Mr. Lopez’s portion of beach." So he didn't just leave.. he made sure his beach was covered first. Which fits with my statement above.

Originally Posted by chrono1081

But the article says this: "Mr. Lopez said he was aware of the rule before he set off running but chose to disregard it, fearing that the person would drown in the few minutes that he waited for his supervisor to show up."

The rule that a supervisor had to be present before he left.

Originally Posted by chrono1081

....
That also completely nullifies your second point which was this:
"His actions might also imply that if he hadn't been able to get someone to cover his zone, he may not have gone to the distressed person's aid."

But, the article you are quoting states that his zone was covered. He took the time to call.

Originally Posted by chrono1081

...
As for the snarky "common sense" remark, I'm glad I and most other posters on here have it. I'm glad the life guard had it, and I'm glad this story had a happy outcome because of it.

"Common sense" often leads to the wrong conclusion. It was "common sense" that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Also that you could cure people of most sicknesses by bleeding them.

Originally Posted by chrono1081

You can choose to follow dumb rules that can get people killed but I'm sure glad this lifeguard didn't. He did what he was trained to do which was save lives.


Seriously I can't fathom that some of you are trying to say this guy did the wrong thing. Unbelievable.

No.. he did the right thing. His boss overreacted, perhaps. What I am disputing is the contention that you leave your zone to save a live regardless of the rules. He followed the basic rule - which was that you don't leave your zone unprotected. He didn't leave it unprotected - he had arranged coverage. I think if the coverage was not available he would not had left his zone. I also think the rules about not leaving your zone are, basically, good rules. I also note in the full article that the rule for that beach is that he could leave his zone - if he could see the person in distress. In this case he couldn't ... someone fetched him. Maybe I should ask if you read the article?

[Consultant]

Originally Posted by snberk103

I had read a different version of the story that said that he had called his supervisor, who was not available, so he called the lifeguard in the next zone to cover his zone. The rule, in the version I read, that he broke was not waiting for the supervisor to arrive. Note that he did not just leave his post, he made two calls first. From the story that is quoted in the OP: "A fellow lifeguard who was down the beach began to supervise Mr. Lopez’s portion of beach." So he didn't just leave.. he made sure his beach was covered first. Which fits with my statement above.

The rule that a supervisor had to be present before he left.
But, the article you are quoting states that his zone was covered. He took the time to call.
"Common sense" often leads to the wrong conclusion. It was "common sense" that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. Also that you could cure people of most sicknesses by bleeding them.


No.. he did the right thing. His boss overreacted, perhaps. What I am disputing is the contention that you leave your zone to save a live regardless of the rules. He followed the basic rule - which was that you don't leave your zone unprotected. He didn't leave it unprotected - he had arranged coverage. I think if the coverage was not available he would not had left his zone. I also think the rules about not leaving your zone are, basically, good rules. I also note in the full article that the rule for that beach is that he could leave his zone - if he could see the person in distress. In this case he couldn't ... someone fetched him. Maybe I should ask if you read the article?

Exactly. I guess some people in this thread believes the loch ness monster will drown their kid no matter what the truth is.

[r98266]

Wondercow, snberk103: well said, I agree with all comments.

chrono1081: just stop, you are proving your ignorance. Americans as a GROUP are a bunch of morons; a PERSON has the potential to be smart, PEOPLE in situations like this are often retarded and act like a bunch of five year olds (i.e. mob mentality). Yes, it is sad that a person should be limited by "zones" but lawsuits are all too common in the US. I, as an American, am ashamed of what our society has become.

Also, that CEO may have said the guy did the right thing by saving the man, but do you honestly think the guy was going to say anything else? That'd make him look like the bad guy.. think.

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by snberk103

I agree. The worst case scenario is that someone still drowns ...it's just a case of on which beach. The best case scenario is that nobody drowns.. as was the case here. Kudos to the lifeguard.

Hardly the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is that he runs out of his zone, but in the time it takes for him to run to person A, person A drowns, then while out of zone, Person B starts having trouble in zone. The lifeguard runs back into zone but does not get there is time so Person B drowns. Person C, out of zone, when seeing that this part of the beach has a lifeguard seemingly on duty, goes into water and starts to drown. The lifeguard, not willing to lose a third person on his watch, goes out of zone again, but again fails to make it to Person C before they drown. Person D, in zone, but unaware of all of this but thinking he is protected, is the next person to drown in zone. Etc. etc.

I guess this is what the employer was afraid of. Stupid fear and stupid rule to set up and enforce? Yes, but it is also stupid to privatize emergency rescue folks. Once you do that, the organization's purpose becomes to make a profit and then it is about making money and not putting that money at risk.

[iEvolution]

This reminds me of a situation here recently in Utah with one of the Walmarts, 3 employees tackled and held down a guy that pulled out a gun in the store, all three employees were terminated for violating company rules.

Apparently its better to let people die in the name of a company policy rather than save lives.