Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rdowns, Mar 12, 2010.
I'm kind of missing edesignuk's penis stories.
Yeah. Putting aside the, uh, "personal nature" of the examination, I think the airline made the right call. If one of you came to me and asked me for my opinion on your injury or illness or wound -- no matter where it was -- I would be similarly uncomfortable. For anything beyond the simplest first aid, I would have said the same thing -- "I can't help you, see a doctor when you can".
I would not want to risk giving you incorrect advice, both from the perspective of doing my best to help you (wouldn't I feel terrible if I told you I thought it was nothing and then it turned out to be cancer), and from the perspective of not wanting to be sued to oblivion, especially if I was in any sort of position of authority.
Agreed. The judge I think ruled correctly.
I would be too embarrassed to bring a situation like this to court.
Dude, size doesn't matter.
Apparently it does.
Thank god, I do to!!!! Unless of course he spilled some very hot coffee and then sues em for that too!
I think the airline crew were correct in refusing to examine the individual, but I also think they were wrong in refusing to call a doctor.
Since when was a team of airline staff equipped to decide what constitutes an urgent medical problem. This also contradicts their argument that examination should be left to medical professionals. So should decision making about medical problems.
Actually, it doesn't. Flight Attendants (at least in the US) receive basic first aid training along with a set of reasonable criteria for determining the escalation of medical situations. "Grave enough" in this sense refers to someone that is unconscious, having difficulty breathing, bleeding profusely, unresponsive, and so on. "Hey, look at my balls" doesn't quite pass muster.
Yep, a sensible decision by the judge. You see, it can happen after all.
How the heck does one rupture a vain near ones scrotum while sitting in an airplane? That's the question he should be asking himself so that it never happens again.
+1 for informativeness
It's quite clear that you have no medical background. If they refused to examine the individual, they could not determine the extent of any bleeding, either internally or externally.
Your last sentence shows a blatant lack of tact. I imagine the person involved would have been extremely embarrassed at having to ask someone to examine him, but was likely quite terrified. I still insist that the individual involved was well within his rights to request a medical examination and IMO he should have received one. Basic first aid is not anywhere near extensive enough to be making judgement calls like this.
I guess the sort of attitude shown by the flight attendants (and the Judge) is just typical of modern Canada.
Wow. Just wow.
Don't you mean Canada?
Yes, typo on my part - apologies for such a horrendous error
My original point still applies. Thanks to both of you for taking the time to highlight my rather basic error, and for failing to actually participate in the discussion.
And it's quite clear you're jumping to conclusions, so save the feigned indignation, please..
I'm a (formerly) certified EMT, and fairly well-versed in commercial carrier standards and limits given my exposure to their operations on a nearly daily basis.
I can't speak for Canadian airlines, but on a US carrier if they would have sought on-board professional medical assistance, and lacking that have 24-hour access to ground-based advice and evaluation, which will advise either continuation or medically-necessitated termination of the flight.
I've been on board for dozens of medical emergencies, real and perceived, and each one has been handled with due care and diligence, with the affected passenger's well-being being foremost in each instance.
I would have to assume that in this case that had the bleeding been obviously profuse enough, or had the passenger been in substantial physical distress, the course of action would have been different. Again, being a Canadian charter carrier (and hence deeply ingrained with nationalized healthcare protocols ), I can't speak to the specifics.
And c'mon, "Hey, look at my balls" was funny.
There was nothing 'feigned' about my post. I'm quite taken aback by the lack of care this man received. I would be disgusted if this happened on a regular basis.
The article does not state that the flight crew contacted a doctor either on board, or on ground. In fact, it states that they refused to do this, claiming his situation was not 'grave enough'. That clearly involves them making a medical judgement without any evidence (as they did not examine him in any way - they are not qualified to do so).
As I said, the bleeding could have been internal or external (I placed emphasis on that in my last post), which would be impossible for any of the on board flight crew to determine without examination.
And no, it really wasn't funny. It goes against the grain for me to laugh at others misfortune.
Since all humor, at its root, is in the misfortune or failing of another, I must surmise that you find nothing funny. How sad.
Back on-topic, I was unaware of the nature of the carrier in question (Canada's leading charter operator), and generally find that all primarily charter carriers are a wee dodgy in their practices on a good day, regardless of the flag. Could they/should they have gone at least a little further? Certainly, but at the end of the day were entirely justified given the outcome. "What-ifs" are entirely immaterial, as the only thing that matters is what did transpire.
What's sad is your basic misconception of humour. There are many many examples of things which can be funny that do not involve human misfortune. Even more which do not relate to an individuals health. Oh dear.
With that, I guess it's time to draw this discussion to a close as you have decided that all discussions which ultimately don't change anything are pointless. I don't think there would be much for you to talk about on a rumour site based on that.
The part that seems to escape most here is,
why couldn't he examine his own balls - think about it.
Was he terrified at the sight of blood (especially his own),
or was he not physically able to find them?
Oh, my, I suppose I'll have to slink away in shame and self-loathing now.
Lighten up, Francis.
I think the judge was wrong here MAYBE...
I maybe wrong on this... but the air crew is there to make only basic health care. Where they failed is asking for assistance from a Doctor that might be on the flight...
Wonder how the airline might feel if the guy bleed out and died from their inattention.
Been on a couple of flights that some hero's step up... yes it meant a delay or a different airport.... but in the end we all applauded them both...
There have a been a couple of posts above that wondered at the air-crew's ability to decide the medical condition of this poor fellow. Someone, not naming names, even brought up the chance of him "bleeding out." Please note in the original article that he noticed "spots of blood". Not pools, puddles, or even grams. Just spots. Like a nose bleed. Maybe not even like a nose bleed. I could see a writer describing the (hypothetical) shirt as being "drenched" in order get more readers, if it had been a nose bleed.
I had a nose bleed on a plane once. It was not pretty, and the air-crew made sure I was looked after. But I didn't need to see a doctor, nor did I need the plane to touch down. I will admit that this fellow's bleeding was unusual due to the location, but let's keep some perspective here. "Spots of Blood".
What did the fellow expect from a closer inspection. "Yep, you're bleeding. But you knew that already."
Crew and Judge made the right decision, in my humble opinion.