The lifeguard and the out of area swimmer

[John Smith]

I'm sure you've all heard this story in one form or another. We discussed it last night for a while. I found it interesting that die hard Republicans thought this kid should have gone to save the individual who was swimming in a "swim at your own risk" area.

The reason the "company" held that this kid should not have left his area is very simple. If he leaves his area to save this swimmer that's out of his area and someone in his area drowns, there will be a big lawsuit, and the family of the victim would win it. If the guy out of area drowned there may also be a lawsuit, but it would be more difficult to find solid ground for it.

I see a strange self contradiction here. My die hard Republican friends who are opposed to the mandate in health care both took the position that you can't let the man die.

As politely as I could, without mentioning healthcare, I pointed out how this is a moral dilmma. This man chose to swim where there was no lifeguard and it is posted, as I'm led to believe, that it was a swim at your own risk area.

Isn't this the moral dilemma of health care: we are not prepared to let an uninsured person sit there and die.

[Paul Pless]

fart

[BrianW]

I can't imagine going through life, making every news article and conversation a political poll. Every social engagement a political affair. Every interaction a matter of "us versus them."

[bobbys]

I can't imagine going through life, making every news article and conversation a political poll. Every social engagement a political affair. Every interaction a matter of "us versus them."

.

Just be glad he did not blame Mitt Romney 's jet boat wake for causing the man to almost drown.

Mitt's wake also caused power outages in NYC and made Republicans kid nap babies..

This is a moral dilemma not to be ignored!

[Gerarddm]

A similar moral situation, with different outcome, happened not too long ago where a fire department, present on the scene, allowed a home to burn to the ground because they hadn't paid a fire dep't assessment.

[Paul Pless]

I'd like to know where John gets all his 'die hard' Republican friends. I don't have single one.

[BrianW]

I think they're made of straw.

[John Smith]

I'd like to know where John gets all his 'die hard' Republican friends. I don't have single one.

fart

[John Smith]

I have a feeling that the ultra partison serial posters who come here have few friends left in real life who will put up with their desire to argue about politics all day everyday.

On the net with a potential audience of millions they can always find a few to take their bait and thats why they are here instead of having pleasant and productive conversations at home.

This isn't a flippant thread. This was a real situation and the liefguard got fired. Given the health care has been such a large part of the recent discussions, and the mandate has been a major part of the discussion, it seems reasonable to look at this situation in similar perspective.

The general consensus of this country is we should not let this man drown, or a man who gets ill die for lack of healthcare. The underlying question here is very similar. If a man CHOOSES to swim where he does so at his own risk, why should we pay to save him? If we are not prepared to let him drown, why should he get this protection from those who do pay to have a lifeguard on duty?

What happens the the "nanny state" I hear conservatives complain about in this situation?

I don't think we should let anyone die or not save anyone from drowning, whether it's because he swims at his own risk or fall off his boat and is not wearing a life jacket. I believe the system in place to save all these people, or the ill, should be a tax payer funded part of our infrastructure.

I have trouble with those who complain about the Nanny state, and preach personal responsibility, not having the courage of their conviction when faced with an actual situtation.

Do you let a person who choses not to have health insurance die? If your answer is no, who pays for his care?

You can choose to attack this thread, ignore this thread, or consider the question it asks, and where to we draw the line. If one chooses not to have car insurance, no one believes we should pay to fix his car. Why should we pay to fix him?

[Paul Pless]

This is the bilge. 99% of what gets posted here is flippant.

Btw, the lifeguard has been rehired.

[B_B]

Btw, the lifeguard has been rehired.

I believe they offered him his job back but he didn't take it - several other lifeguards who's spoken up in defense of his actions were also let go/quit.

In other words - it appears as if management and staff have issues beyond the basic one in question

"It's another chapter in my life closed and I am just going to continue to get my schooling finished and get on with my career," Lopez told CNN.

...

Three other lifeguards quit in protest and two others were dismissed after saying they would have acted as Lopez did.

"They told us we would be liabilities and we had to be let go," lifeguard Travis Madrid told CNN.

[Phillip Allen]

how amazingly politically entwined...

[Curtism]

This is the bilge. 99% of what gets posted here is flippant.

Btw, the lifeguard has been rehired.

LOL, priceless! Pless stress tests the irony meter again.

[Curtism]

Isn't this the moral dilemma of health care: we are not prepared to let an uninsured person sit there and die.

John, I think you may have missed the best part of your argument with your friends.

Since this story broke local papers have been trying to calm concerned beach goers by saying in our area, St. Pete/Clearwater, there are no policies determining which lifeguards should cover which zones. The policy is that if someone is in trouble, the first lifeguard to see the distressed person is the one who responds.

However, the lifeguards around here are employees of their local municipalities and responsive to the needs of swimmers, whereas the lifeguards in Hallandale story are employed by a private contractor. (Think third party provider, accountable only to themselves and their shareholders, sort of like our for-profit insurance corporations.)

[skuthorp]

The lifeguard was going to loose his job either way. Management covering their asses on both fronts. They are the ones that should be under the hammer, here there'd be a case for wrongful dismissal brought by all the lifeguards. But I'd like to see the wording on his contract as a private guard.

[Paul Pless]

LOL, priceless! Pless stress tests the irony meter again.

I do my best.

[ChaseKenyon]

I am not familiar with the case under discussion.

I was however in HS and college, a Red Cross certified Senior Lifeguard and WSI (Water safety instructor - we taught the lifeguards)

First job at Simsbury Town Forest " pond". 100 p0l;us yards of beach with another ten at each end where the stream entered and the dam was. The Lifeguard base was at the dam end and the gravel road crossed the outflow about 20 feet from the dam. We were also responsible for collecting payment for the use across the street of the cooking party open sided paVILIONS AND TEH CAMPING AREA. Hence the location of the lifeguard station at the dam end not the center. the far side of the pond about 50 to 60 yards across the pond had an even longer beach that was used for summer camp. We were not responsible for that side but .....With the silt filled murkey water we mad more dire straights rescues on people from that side . Often the I can swim better than any lifeguard drunk on BUD or PBR and such and 5'8" 400 # ers who did not need to be on the babyside with the lifeguards. There were warning signs about the center rip stream and it 20 ft plus depth and 20 to 30 degree instant temperature drop. Nasty.


I went on to guard and be a group leader at both Misquamicut and Matunic beaches in RI. Missy is known for the carosel and boardwalk but the northern section was one of the top body surfing centers on the east coast.

Matunic was/is one of the top surfboarding beaches on the east or at least north east coast.

Both of those RI beaches are also known for the sharp drop off past the beach sand as you go out and the frequent unpredictable powerful rip tides

At all three beaches we had teams of three or sometimes (Misquamicut) 7 with a leader and two teams to act as a big team for the rip tides . We needed the 7 guard teams for Matunic bu tithappened two years after I was there.At all three beaches we had not just whistles but coast guard sourced canned air/Freon extreme horns. If we sounded them every one was expected and required by law to leave the water instantly same as if we spotted a great white cruising the beach drop of for stripers. Drag your ass getting out of the water and you wqere banned for the week. 2nd time two weeks, third time for the summer except for attending Lifeguard school or passing a swimmers and surf exam and test the next year.

So if we had to go out side the protected area at all three one of our team stayed and made sure everyone stayed out of the water and the other two of us worked together on the rescue.

Logical and efective. Supposedly most of the time anyway.

I was considered a tough task maker but devoted to my team members and had waiters to join me.

In 3 years of life guarding and teaching it and 4 years teaching white water canoeing. Pretty much with shooting 8 to 10 ft dam breach drop offs the absolute limit of open canoe(CLASS 2 PLUS TO CLASS 3 if high water) I never lost a student or a swimmer or surfer. Oh they suffered a pulled muscle or two here and there for me to rescue them safely for them and ME. Lots of pain for them but not a serious permanent injury..



Hardest thing to teach new or first year lifeguards is always do not be a hero. you have a whole beach of swimmers to look after. If one dingbat who can't swim or is boozed up drags you down you have let every single one of the rest of the people down and put them in danger.

Yeah I've broken a couple of jaws and kneed the stomach to push the last breath out of insanely panicked drowners, just so I could rescue them. Some of them bigger and stronger than me. Me at the next to unlimited wrestling weight class and in perfect lean athletic condition. (thinking about it makes me feel really old.)

Lifeguard long enough and you will lose a swimmer or two or more. As a team or beach captain you have to train your guards and repeat over and over that in the water their life is automatically more valuable than the Swimmer. With out you the swimmer will, WILL, drown and die. No excuse for the loss of a guard. It takes a human error on the lost guard's part and a negligent error on the part of his/her section/station mates .

Loss of a fellow guard is unacceptable.

That was always my nightmare and worst fear.

[Y Bar Ranch]

As politely as I could, without mentioning healthcare, I pointed out how this is a moral dilmma. This man chose to swim where there was no lifeguard and it is posted, as I'm led to believe, that it was a swim at your own risk area.

There is a difference between happening to see someone drowning in an area of the coastline where you don't provide guaranteed coverage and therefore the drowning victim got lucky, and providing guaranteed coverage to the entire coastline.

[genglandoh]

Wow this is very too political for me.

Bottom line the Kid did the right thing and helped save a life.
The only reason the company had this stupid rule was for legal reasons and fear of lawsuits.

The real issue is why is their such a great fear of lawsuits.

My son is a lifeguard at a local beach and there is a diving board on the dock.
Because the beach has had a diving board for over 30 years and no one has been hurt we can keep it.

But if it was a new addition to the beach the cost of insurance would stop the beach from having a diving board.