American Air Refuses Oxygen to Dying Woman, Then 3 Equipment Failures

[Thalassamania]

It is my understanding, as I stated before, that there is no emergency oxygen routinely carried by passenger aircraft. I think that DD's confusion stems from the fact that there are three oxygen sources, flight crew (fixed available through masks in the cockpit), Cabin Crew (walk-around bottles) and passenger (overhead masks) but none of these are what we would conventionally see as emergency medical oxygen, the walk-around is the closest to that.

 

[rockjock3]

I heard yet another story. Peter guy hit on one of the points. I mean, I am only a layman, but I too wouldn't provide oxygen based on the cousin's (own statement) words "she has diabetes, she needs oxygen".

Here is the story that I got. The flight attendent responded that "we don't provide O2 for that" (diabetes), but said she would go ask the pilot.

-- Following from a statement from another passenger--(don't know what answer the FA got), When the FA returned the lady was now having trouble breathing and they got O2 for her. -

Fact based on several statments-Only the cousin and a couple of passengers, not the doctor or nurses have made a statement that there was no O2 in the bottles. --Here, let me hold a bottle up and you tell me if it has O2 in it and how full it is. Unless you are using it you don't know. On a plane, forget about hearing the hiss (unless it is full up) over the engines and commotion.

Fact - only a statement from the cousin stated the AED didn't work. The nurses, Doctors and FA didn't make any statements as such (at least as of the last time I read any story on this.).
Fact - AEDs don't always shock (which could be construed as not working to bystander). AEDs must find certain conditions. AEDs you will find on planes, in gyms, and other like places don't have manual shock functions because the people using them are not trained to do that and would probably end up killing people by shocking them any time the machine decided not to. AEDs (might be called something else) in hospitals have that option because, guess what, doctors have the training to override the machine.

--from the American Red Cross--
"If a "shockable" rhythm is detected, the machine will charge itself and instruct the rescuer to stand clear of the victim and to press the shock button."

--from Youth Sports - Sports Moms on the operation of a common AED model--
"If the victim is not in cardiac arrest, or has a rhythm that is untreatable with difibrillation, the Defibtech AED will make that determination and not allow a user to adminster a shock.

Sooo, as for AEDs, not shocking is not a sign of not working. So far nobody that was qualified to decide such has made a statement that the AED was faulty. (as of the last I have heard on this story.).

Fact is. Nobody has first hand knowledge here. Until the proper authorities complete their investigation then we will not know exactly what happened, maybe.

 

[deepstops]

Sensationalistic reporting in the original article and by the OP here

Move along folks, there's not really a story here.

 

[jbd]

What people seem to be missing here is that a very sick woman died while trapped in an aluminum tube and with very little access to any medical aid that could have been of any help. There are times when ***** happens and you are just going to die.

Just to expand on this a bit. From my experience, this woman might well have died even if she had been in an intensive care unit(ICU) surrounded by highly trained, experienced staff who had access to state of the art equipment and pharmaceuticals. This happens all the time in hospitals throughout the world.

Additionally there could have been 5,000 medical O2 units on that aircraft and it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome.

 

[jbd]

This also sheds new light on the original story. It would have helped if this info had been included in the original, and if the reporter tried to obtain it and received "no comment" - s/he could have included that, too. I doubt the airline would have commented until they had to.

And perhaps the cousin was wrong about the bottles being empty and the machine not working?

It could be that this thread was premature based on the story that included the cousin's account only, but I still feel semi-justified at least, as we know the corporations are not going to tell us anything they don't have to.

Gee!?!? Do ya think its possible you were premature in posting this thread??? Could it be that the cousin didn't truly understand the equipment being used??? Could it be his reaction to, or interpretation of, the events were skewed by his grief???

The media is often time criticized here on scubaboard for inacurrate or premature reporting and you fell right into to lock step with the media. Your semi-justification is irrelevant. No corporation, large business, small business, crimmal or anyone else is going to tell us anything they don't have to. Thats a given in situation which may involve legal investigation.

 

[DandyDon]

Gee!?!? Do ya think its possible you were premature in posting this thread???

Yeah, you could be right...

Could it be that the cousin didn't truly understand the equipment being used??? Could it be his reaction to, or interpretation of, the events were skewed by his grief???

The media is often time criticized here on scubaboard for inacurrate or premature reporting and you fell right into to lock step with the media. Your semi-justification is irrelevant. No corporation, large business, small business, crimmal or anyone else is going to tell us anything they don't have to. Thats a given in situation which may involve legal investigation.

Still, if the public does not demand explanations, we won't get them. Justified or not, if that story hadn't ran - would be have seen the airline's view?

And I bet that this thread added to the Google Vote on the subject, in a small way increasing the pressure on the airline.

But you're right, I shouldn't post after midnight...

 

[Sue J]

A few years ago I was at a resort when one of my fellow guests had a heart attack on the walk to dinner. The place was chock full of doctors, so within 2-3 minutes he had 3 doctors, one of them a cardiologist, working to save him. The staff, trained in emergency procedures, brought a portable AED from very nearby and administered it appropriately. The ambulance arrived within 10 minutes and whisked him off to the hospital. And guess what? The poor guy died anyway. As jdb and others have posted, sometimes **** happens and there's not much that can be done about it.

Unfortunately, a panicky relative, desperate for someone to make their loved one well, is not likely to be the best witness. No matter what was done it won't seem like enough if the outcome is death.

 

[drbill]

I must be missing the point here, but then I only play a "doctor" on TV, and not even the right type.

Yes, of course the passenger involved may well have died on that flight even if they had a full surgical hospital on board. Death happens despite our best attempts to interfere.

However, IF the safety equipment on board was not fully charged and functional, that is a moot point. We still have to await an official report to find out if that was true or not. If it is true, I think AA has some big time explaining to do. If not, then this may all be a non issue.

 

[jbd]

Still, if the public does not demand explanations, we won't get them. Justified or not, if that story hadn't ran - would be have seen the airline's view?

And I bet that this thread added to the Google Vote on the subject, in a small way increasing the pressure on the airline.

There really wasn't a story to publish. It made "news" only because the media outlets were bored. Because there was no real story, there was no need for the airline to explain anything.

Increase pressure on the airlines to do what???? Are we to expect the airlines to install ICU's on all aircraft??? As I have already pointed out, being in an ICU at the time one has a heart attack, cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism etc, etc is absolutely no guarantee that one will survive despite the best efforts of a highly trained and experienced staff. Thus rendering teh Google vote irrelevant and somewhat rediculous.

 

[jbd]

I must be missing the point here, but then I only play a "doctor" on TV, and not even the right type.

Yes, of course the passenger involved may well have died on that flight even if they had a full surgical hospital on board. Death happens despite our best attempts to interfere.

However, IF the safety equipment on board was not fully charged and functional, that is a moot point. We still have to await an official report to find out if that was true or not. If it is true, I think AA has some big time explaining to do. If not, then this may all be a non issue.

You are not missing the point at all. Your last paragraph spells it out quite well.