How would you know that someone was deceased? I asked ConstantSkeptic the same question. The protocols list about every piece of diagnostic information there is, and unless a person is beheaded, has heart, lungs, brain, or liver separated from the body, is charred, is stiff as a board, or has blood pooling at the lowest points, there is no way to say that a person cannot be revived. How would you be able to tell a hypothermic unresponsive person from a dead person?
Ultimately it was not the decision for the swimmer to make. That decision has been taken out of his hands by the protocols. If you cannot know that they are dead, you must act as if there’s a chance they can be revived.
I’m not talking about what Yamamoto or anybody else has to regret. I’m talking about what the Coast Guard’s protocols are. Ornot said that the protocols said he had to pass over Fuddy because she was unresponsive. That is absolutely false. The swimmers manual gives instructions for how to handle unresponsive victims; why would they do that if the protocols say to skip them? And the protocols say that fixed dilated pupils, low body temp, absence of breathing, absence of pulse, and unresponsiveness to painful stimulus are NOT indicators of “obvious death”. If those are all the indicators of death that you’ve got, you have to do CPR. So what other indicators did Ornot find, that allowed him to bypass CPR for Fuddy? What other indicators ARE there? What you think is “obviously dead” makes no difference. What Ornot thinks is “obviously dead” makes no difference. If there is no way to know that their heart has stopped irreversibly you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Would you begrudge somebody the benefit of the doubt? Would you want protocols to write off people who may have had a pulse just moments ago, or whose pulse is so faint it can’t be detected without the instruments? The protocols are put in place so that tragic mistakes aren’t made.
I've been sitting here thinking about what you wrote, I think the answer is obvious, something appears to have been NOT done right, but just because the rescuer may not have followed 'protocols' (I hate that word, it reminds me too much of the Nazi's whose endless instruction manuals assisted in the rounding up and the death of millions) doesn't mean she was deliberately allowed to die. Does it?
Whatcha gunna do? Charge the man with manslaughter/gross negligence or what? I honestly can't see that happening, there will always be occasions when people use their own judgement during a moment when time is of the essence, and bugger the manual. That's all just imo of course, and opinions is all we've got.
btw, did you see that small flash of purple on the left and right of the composite? That's the from the garment she was wearing that very same day. I think it's almost conclusive that the 'missing woman' was Fuddy herself.
Doing some recaps. All this chatter about protocols and what the rescuers should have done. Recent images show her in the water stretched out taut and LONG. You know what that indicates?
RIGOR MORTIS! She’s as stiff as a board.
I think the rescue crew might have noticed, and moved on.