[dayglored]

Three thoughts come to mind immediately:

1. The private company who hired the lifeguard who broke the agreed-to rules, to save someone outside his area, is entirely within their rights to fire the individual, for disobeying a direct order that he acknowledged. Likewise the others who said they would do the same thing.

2. The lifeguard did what any reasonable, caring human being would do -- especially one who is trained in the saving of lives -- under the circumstances. He did the right thing, even though it cost him his job. The others did right to have been honest and backed him.

3. I would like to hope that in the same circumstances, I too would risk my job to save another human being in dire trouble.

So, IMO, it's a shame they lost their jobs, but they did the right thing and for the rest of their lives the lifeguard who saved the person will be comforted by that knowledge. The company has to find some more lifeguards, but they too did the right thing. Can't have employees running around doing stuff they specifically aren't supposed to do.

But the, IMO, the original agreement is what is flawed. I don't think it's reasonable to ask, or to agree, to watch another human being in trouble, suffer and die.

[2banana]

What happens in an out of control tort system where lawyers have no limits...

[Kirkwood]

“The company has to find some more lifeguards, but they too did the right thing. “

The company did what their lawyers told them to do.

[Truth29]

Well, they may be within the provisions of their contract, but it sounds like Jeff Ellis and Associates need to be put out of business.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Actually, we have the trial lawyers to thank for this.

[Cicero]

Maybe they need a new rule that lawyers have to wear purple bathing suits, and lifeguards are not permitted to save them.

[TLI]

He broke the rules of Jeff Ellis and Associates, the aquatic safety contractor.

Looks like to me he obeyed the rules that exist far above Jeff Ellis and Associates.

Perfect example of Matthew 6:20 and Tomas has nothing to worry about.

Nor do the other five.

On the other hand, J.E. and Asso.?

Not so good.

.

[JoeDetweiler]

I’m confused by the article.

First....”Lopez said he jumped into the water and “I double underhooked him....”

Then....”By the time Lopez arrived on the scene, other beachgoers had dragged the unconscious man ashore and started CPR....”

What exactly did Mr Lopez do?

[dayglored]

Respectfully request consideration of a "Moral Absolutes" ping.

This isn't the usual "pro-life" situation, as it involves an adult rather than a baby. But all life is sacred in the eyes of God, and I think it raises a valid moral values issue.

Is a contract valid or morally defensible, that requires an individual to watch another human being suffer and die, when they are trained to save them?

Thanks for your consideration.

[blueyon]

“Hallandale Beach is a city in Broward County, Florida”

Enough said!

[moviefan8]

Well our sue happy culture is to blame for this.

[saywhatagain]

What we have here is a failure of common sense!

Your points are well taken and for the most part unarguable.

However there is a different viewpoint that is lacking here. In a effort not to get technical, that viewpoint can be summed up as "no harm, no foul."

In mine and other safety critical industries subject to civil crimes, even jail if we screw up . . . If you fired everyone caught making a mistake or wrong critical decision, these particular industries probably would no longer exist if truth be known.

About 20 years ago, common sense approach has started to take root. The concept is . . . If you screw up, but there are no consequences of the particular moment or action . . . the attitude is . . . the mistake did not happen in the sense as we used to view things.

However . . . Responsible individuals are "kinda" (yeah I know) required to report on themselves and even others so that . . . 1. Mainly we and everyone around can learn from the incident and become "better" for it 2. To help determine root cause of incident . . . i.e bad training, lack of supervision, uneven practices, etc etc etc. And the organization becomes stronger and better for it as it identifies practices that can NOT be complied with as in this specific incident.

Any one ask if the company could be sued for NOT responding?

[Travis McGee]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

“No greater love.” Lifeguards....heroes....I love them.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Saving an innocent life is ALWAYS the right and moral thing to do.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I would fire him on the spot. Then I would rehire him on the spot. I would duly note the actions, per regulations, in his file and also include a letter of commendation.

[Osage Orange]

The company has to find some more lifeguards, but they too did the right thing. Can't have employees running around doing stuff they specifically aren't supposed to do.

B.S.!

[bboop]

Stupid rules for rules’ sake trumped common sense and human decency. We must never follow rules that go against human decency. The Nazis conflagration proved that once again, and history is full of instances of heroes and idiots. The lifeguard company is filled with idiots and lacks the courage to be human.

tsk tsk.

“Right” it might be according to ‘the rules’ but wrong it is before the Great Throne of God. I hope some terrific company snaps these guys up and honors them appropriately; they will get great and honorable workers.

The lawyers be damned.

[SeminoleCounty]

Whenever the lives of the customers or employees is at threat, no business should be able to fire someone for taking action to prevent the loss of life.

To cover for a business that punishes a moral responsibility is nothing more than Business Socialism.

And, if that lifeguard did not act, and the person drowned, the company will be sued...and will lose. No jury is going to rule in favor of a business that prevented life saving action from taking place

I am pro-Business....but no fan of Business Socialism. You never should shirk moral responsibility

[ConorMacNessa]

An absolute outrage! Back in the old days the guiding maxim was "Necessity demands a rescue!" The law then, in the 19th Century, was articulated by a court in Texas in a case whose caption I have long forgotten: "The Law places such value on a human life that it will not impute negligence to an effort to save it." That's not an exact quote but pretty close.

This case is a good example of how low our society has sunk. In a better world, the term of the contract forbidding the lifeguards to pass the boundary of their jurisdiction would, IMHO, be unenforceable on the basis of being "malum in se" (inherently evil, or evil in itself.) The lifeguards, particularly the one who saved the drowning swimmer, deserve medals.

My 16 year-old son is working as a lifeguard in local pools this Summer. I haven't asked him, but I believe he would have gone past the boundary buoy to save a distressed swimmer. If he did not, I'd toss him out in the street as a craven cur.



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[redgolum]

Good for the life guards. The company is made up of cowards.

[RetiredTexasVet]

With six lifeguards, another lifeguard could cover while the first lifeguard saved the drowning person. Imagine the news headlines and the astute CNN reporters who would have crucified the lifeguard for letting the person drown. The company that fired the lifeguards is no better than the pimps and prostitutes at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.