"Call 911": EMTs refuse to help dying pregnant woman

Because they were off-duty and saving the life of a woman and her unborn child was too much to ask, apparently.

Quote :

A grief-stricken Brooklyn mother blasted two off-duty city emergency medical technicians Sunday who are being investigated for refusing to help her dying pregnant daughter - decrying the medics as "heartless."

Cynthia Rennix wept for her 25-year-old daughter Eutisha Revee Rennix, who died after collapsing in front of two FDNY EMTs who were buying bagels at the shop where she worked - but declined to help.

...

The expectant mom was working Dec. 9 at the Au Bon Pain at Metrotech in downtown Brooklyn, steps from FDNY headquarters, when she felt shortness of breath and intense stomach pain, her relatives said.

Co-workers said they begged two EMTs in the store to help, but they only callously turned and said, "Call 911" before walking out with their food.

Wow.

Quote :

Eutisha Revee Rennix's unborn child, delivered after just six months, died after her mother. The girl was posthumously named Jahniya Renne Woodson.

Rennix and her baby were buried Friday.

Another link to another article about the event, describing the reactions of the people in the cafe to the callousness of the EMTs.

Helping others in dire distress isn't part of your job, it's part of being human. Dogs help each other when they're injured or sick, even if all they can do is provide companionship. Those EMT's preferred the company of their bagels to that of other humans.

Now, I shall recite some platitudes:

That incident is telling of the apathy in our society. The meaning of the word "job" is becoming less of a calling and more of a chore. People no longer feel loyalty to their society, but to themselves.

It's just business.

I've heard of callous assholes, but these two take the cake.

Not really surprising.

Manny wrote:

Those EMT's preferred the company of their bagels to that of other humans.

Hell, I prefer the company of bagels to most people, but I couldn't have just walked. Like Kuzco, I'm not THAT heartless.

Manny wrote:

The meaning of the word "job" is becoming less of a calling and more of a chore...It's just business.

Hasn't this been true for years, if not decades?

I agree totally with Manny. How can people call themselves human when they have the GALL to leave somebody to die? To just walk on by and ignore pain?

Call 911, maybe, but would it have killed them to remain by her side and try to keep her calm, offering some basic medical advice? Even if they just walked off when the ambulance arrived? Would it have cost them to dial the number themselves? Would they have found themselves unable to eat their bagels as they did so?

As a sentient being with an awareness of what is right and wrong, it is your JOB, your DUTY to act human. Incidents like this disgust me. People like that aren't worthy of the title 'human'. They aren't even worthy of the title 'animal'. ANIMALS have more conscience than these guys.

These guys rank somewhere around PLANKTON on the empathy scale.

Thanos6 wrote:

Manny wrote:

The meaning of the word "job" is becoming less of a calling and more of a chore...It's just business.

Hasn't this been true for years, if not decades?

Karl Marx said basically the same thing over 160 years ago.

Malganis wrote:

Because they were off-duty and saving the life of a woman and her unborn child was too much to ask, apparently.

Remember kids, it's only an "unborn child" when it's wanted. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They've been suspended without pay.

ETA: Penguin, do you know what prolepsis is?

I got nothin'.

Penguin wrote:

Remember kids, it's only an "unborn child" when it's wanted. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Shh! Don't bring Waffles into this thread!

To be fair to the "Heartless EMT's" here, if they had done the above, and the woman & unborn child had died, they would now be facing manslaughter charges...
In addition, they would be liable for a rather nasty civil case, as they would be legally liable for damages caused by their actions, including phoning 911 themselves...
I have a a sneaky feeling that they will win any appeal, that they make against their suspension, due to the liability issue...

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

To be fair to the "Heartless EMT's" here, if they had done the above, and the woman & unborn child had died, they would now be facing manslaughter charges...
In addition, they would be liable for a rather nasty civil case, as they would be legally liable for damages caused by their actions, including phoning 911 themselves...

What the hell are you talking about.

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

To be fair to the "Heartless EMT's" here, if they had done the above, and the woman & unborn child had died, they would now be facing manslaughter charges...
In addition, they would be liable for a rather nasty civil case, as they would be legally liable for damages caused by their actions, including phoning 911 themselves...
I have a a sneaky feeling that they will win any appeal, that they make against their suspension, due to the liability issue...

Um, no. You have it precisely backwards.

Medical professionals (including EMTs) are shielded from criminal prosecution and civil liabilities for their actions if they are rendering assistance within the course and scope of their duties, absent a showing of either gross negligence or reckless conduct (such as attempting a procedure that they were not qualified to perform and/or was not urgently needed under the circumstances).

However, they also had an affirmative duty to render aid so long as it did not place them in danger of harm (just as a lifeguard or an off-duty police officer would be required to do). So they actually put themselves at greater risk of a successful lawsuit by seeing a person in distress and choosing not to act.

Cactus Wren wrote:

They've been suspended without pay.

ETA: Penguin, do you know what prolepsis is?

I'm not Penguin, but do you mean 'prolapse?" (because I can't find anything about prolepsis that involves pregnancy. Prolapse, on the other hand, means that due to a variety of reasons (too much pressure, physical malformations), the uterus is displaced and drops down into the vagina. If this woman had a prolapsed uterus, then there wasn't much they could've done for the baby since she was only four months along-the prolapse would pretty much guarantee a spontaneous abortion. On the other hand, the mother, if not treated, could easily bleed to death within a fairly short period of time.

I suffered a prolapsed uterus when my twins were four months old, and ended up having to have a partial hysterectomy, due to the stress put on my body by the pregnancy. Which wasn't that big a deal, since I'd already decided I wasn't planning on having any more children. I've heard of cases where they can try and tack the uterus back in place, but any pregnancy that occurs will be extremely high risk, and the woman will likely have to spend the entire pregnancy flat on her back in bed. And even that won't ensure that it won't happen again.

[quote="Rabid Badger"]

Cactus Wren wrote:

They've been suspended without pay.

ETA: Penguin, do you know what prolepsis is?

I'm not Penguin, but do you mean 'prolapse?" (because I can't find anything about prolepsis that involves pregnancy. Prolapse, on the other hand, means that due to a variety of reasons (too much pressure, physical malformations), the uterus is displaced and drops down into the vagina. If this woman had a prolapsed uterus, then there wasn't much they could've done for the baby since she was only four months along-the prolapse would pretty much guarantee a spontaneous abortion. On the other hand, the mother, if not treated, could easily bleed to death within a fairly short period of time.

I suffered a prolapsed uterus when my twins were four months old, and ended up having to have a partial hysterectomy, due to the stress put on my body by the pregnancy. Which wasn't that big a deal, since I'd already decided I wasn't planning on having any more children. Depending on what caused the prolapse, there are various surgeries that can be done to resuspend the uterus to it's normal position.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

To be fair to the "Heartless EMT's" here, if they had done the above, and the woman & unborn child had died, they would now be facing manslaughter charges...
In addition, they would be liable for a rather nasty civil case, as they would be legally liable for damages caused by their actions, including phoning 911 themselves...
I have a a sneaky feeling that they will win any appeal, that they make against their suspension, due to the liability issue...

Um, no. You have it precisely backwards.

Medical professionals (including EMTs) are shielded from criminal prosecution and civil liabilities for their actions if they are rendering assistance within the course and scope of their duties, absent a showing of either gross negligence or reckless conduct (such as attempting a procedure that they were not qualified to perform and/or was not urgently needed under the circumstances).

However, they also had an affirmative duty to render aid so long as it did not place them in danger of harm (just as a lifeguard or an off-duty police officer would be required to do). So they actually put themselves at greater risk of a successful lawsuit by seeing a person in distress and choosing not to act.

Unfortunately, there's no such "Good Samaritian" law in the U.K, where I live & post from, & as such, the scenario that I originally posted concerning the EMT's is valid...
Reading the law mentioned above however, I wish that somebody would introduce this idea into U.K law...

Regardless of whether there is a Good Samaritan law on the books, there are other statutory provisions in New York (where this incident occurred) that state unequivocally that emergency personnel who are rendering assistance have qualified immunity from criminal and civil liability in the discharge of their duties.

Further, in New York State if a person with specialized emergency training observes a emergency situation and fails to act, and that failure to act results in death that person can be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Further, in New York State if a person with specialized emergency training observes a emergency situation and fails to act, and that failure to act results in death that person can be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Well, well, well, it looks like these EMTs just screwed themselves over royally then, didn't they?

Malganis wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Further, in New York State if a person with specialized emergency training observes a emergency situation and fails to act, and that failure to act results in death that person can be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Well, well, well, it looks like these EMTs just screwed themselves over royally then, didn't they?

Possibly; we'll see just how far out on a limb their employers are willing to go for them. Also, as I am aware, we haven't actually heard a defense from them; I'd like to hear that before they're burned at the stake but given the eyewitness accounts it's hard to believe that they could possibly have any reason for depriving her of medical aid other than 'we were on break'.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Cactus Wren wrote:

They've been suspended without pay.

ETA: Penguin, do you know what prolepsis is?

I'm not Penguin, but do you mean 'prolapse?" (because I can't find anything about prolepsis that involves pregnancy. Prolapse, on the other hand, means that due to a variety of reasons (too much pressure, physical malformations), the uterus is displaced and drops down into the vagina. If this woman had a prolapsed uterus, then there wasn't much they could've done for the baby since she was only four months along-the prolapse would pretty much guarantee a spontaneous abortion. On the other hand, the mother, if not treated, could easily bleed to death within a fairly short period of time.

I suffered a prolapsed uterus when my twins were four months old, and ended up having to have a partial hysterectomy, due to the stress put on my body by the pregnancy. Which wasn't that big a deal, since I'd already decided I wasn't planning on having any more children. I've heard of cases where they can try and tack the uterus back in place, but any pregnancy that occurs will be extremely high risk, and the woman will likely have to spend the entire pregnancy flat on her back in bed. And even that won't ensure that it won't happen again.

Ouch. (sympathetic flinch)

But no, I mean prolepsis: "the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished". As when a child speaks of "my birthday party" when his birthday is still a week off. Or when a pregnant woman speaks of her fetus as a "baby".

EMTs deny ignoring her

Ah, they're going for the "Because no one was screaming and she wasn't bleeding like crazy, it wasn't a real emergency" argument.

Good luck with that one fellas, especially since the FDNY is distancing themselves from you.

Cactus Wren wrote:

But no, I mean prolepsis: "the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished". As when a child speaks of "my birthday party" when his birthday is still a week off. Or when a pregnant woman speaks of her fetus as a "baby".

I wasn't aware there was a word specifically designed for describing something that hasn't happened yet as if it had. You learn something new every day.

But yeah, most pregnant women I've ever known refer to the fetus as 'their baby' from the minute they learn they're expecting, even if they're only six weeks along.

Regardless of being charged for anything or any criminal liability, just walking on by was a heartless act in itself.

Quote :

The emergency medical technicians accused of refusing to help a dying
pregnant woman were never asked to examine her or told the extent of
her condition, their lawyer said Thursday.

Uhhh, maybe I'm going waaaaaay out on a limb here, but...isn't the bolded part of that quote their job?