I’ve read the protocols which ARE in effect for US Coast Guard rescue swimmers. It’s at http://www.uscg.mil/health/docs/pdf/sar_cpr_protocols.pdf
Dang it. I had this typed up and then my computer suddenly closed my internet pages. When I restarted and Firefox “recovered” the pages it had the above paragraph but not any of the rest of it. The computer has been going inhibitingly slow on everything today. Once I re-started Outlook Express, which had suddenly closed on its own, I sent myself some links I wanted to look at, to my newly-restored hushmail account, so I could look on one of the other computers in the house, but when I went to sign in to my hushmail account it said that my hushmail account doesn’t exist. sigh. More hope n change I guess. I wonder what hushmail will say when I contact them this time. The more flak I receive, the more I know I am over the target.
Anyway, go look at that site and see that these are the protocols in effect and that a person is “obviously dead” if they are decapitated, charred, have brain, heart, lungs, or liver separated from the rest of their body, or have rigor mortis. In making the determination of whether there is a heartbeat and respiration (which has to be done if the victim is not obviously dead) they have to use a heart monitor and stethoscope if they’ve got one. I’m sure they had one in the helicopter, so to follow this protocol they had to get Fuddy into the helicopter and then make the determination. How confident would a medical person be that they could make an accurate determination with ocean spray, waves, and bobbing motion going on all around them?
If you read the part on hypothermia, they are required to keep suspected hypothermic victims horizontal - and yet we’ve got the photos of the rescuees being raised in sitting position. So they apparently didn’t suspect hypothermia. What, then, did they consider the emergency condition of the other victims, that kept them from obeying the protocols for Fuddy?
If they have victims who are hypothermic they are supposed to get them to a medical facility ASAP. Not 2 hours later. But then, the Coast Guard was supposed to be airborne in a rescue helicopter 5 minutes after receiving the call. It’s a 15-minute flight from Honolulu in the slower aircraft, and yet it took over an hour for them to arrive at the scene of the crash, according to the NTSB timeline, which I would hope has been corroborated with all the sources.
At http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/inside-the-coast-guard-rescue-swimming-school-20131030 it describes the rescue swimmer training. One of the first tests is to rescue a panicking “victim” - in this case 230 pounds worth - who grabs them and pulls them under, within 7 minutes. I’ve read most of the rescue swimmers training manual at http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3710_4C.pdf , and this seems like the most difficult, time-consuming rescue there is in non-stormy waters, except perhaps putting somebody on a back board to lift them.
The two Coast Guard helicopters lifted from the water 3 people total, and the other passengers had no injuries, were floating in life vests, and were not handled as if they were suspected to be hypothermic when they were lifted. The Coast Guard swimmers “didn’t have time” to lift Fuddy?
“I’ve read the protocols which ARE in effect for US Coast Guard rescue swimmers.’
It’s not the CPR protocol but the triage protocol that matters. If they are using the S.T.A.R.T triage model than the rescue swimmer would check if she is breathing and check for a pulse. If the answer was no to both of those then he opens her air way. If she is still not breathing, he moves on to the next victim.
Fred - take care of yourself. I hope your health improves and we see you back here soon.
You are misreading the CPR protocol.
In the flowchart, question 1 is “Is patient hypothermic?” If No (as in Ms. Fuddy’s case), you proceed to question 2.
Question 2 is “Apneic, pulseless, unresponsive?” Obviously, the responder found Ms. Fuddy to not be breathing, to not have a pulse, and to not be responsive. So, when he answered yes to that question, he moved to the next question...
“Victim obviously dead?” There is a note to this question which explains:
“Obviously dead patients include those that are decapitated, incinerated, have major organs (heart, lungs, brain or liver) separated, or for whom rigor mortis or lividity is present.”
“Includes those”... not “are limited to those”... Big difference!
Sort of like saying “Obviously even numbers include 2, 4, 6, and 8.” Yes, include. Not limited to.
The rescuer obviously found Ms. Fuddy to be obviously dead. So he moved on to the survivors he could assist, as an logical person would recognize as the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.