LAT/AP: Woman dies during flight after being refused help

"Mr. Travel" wrote in
:

It doesn't matter. The AA oxygen didn't have a problem. It is too bad
people rush into ideas based on the initial reports. The followup
reports show a much different story.

I never said it did nor did I pass judgement on the situation.

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Justin Case writes:

The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.

Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:19:14 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Justin Case writes:

The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.

Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.



That's easy. According to them there was none. The woman just
happened to die onboard. If she had died before boarding would that
have been the airport's fault?

Sancho Panza wrote:
"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Justin Case writes:


The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.


Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.



The airline didn't have a problem. There were qualified medical people
onboard the plane trying to help the woman. She died. People die. She
just happened to die on a commercial flight.

"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
. ..
Sancho Panza wrote:
"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Justin Case writes:


The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.


Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.

The airline didn't have a problem. There were qualified medical people
onboard the plane trying to help the woman. She died. People die. She just
happened to die on a commercial flight.

Right. Had nothing to do with the delay in response. Had nothing to do with
the inadequate oxygen bottles and the late use of the defibrillator.

The doctor at the scene made it clear that he didn't have much to work with.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:31:11 -0500, "Sancho Panza"
wrote:


"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
...
Sancho Panza wrote:
"John Kulp" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Justin Case writes:


The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.


Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.

The airline didn't have a problem. There were qualified medical people
onboard the plane trying to help the woman. She died. People die. She just
happened to die on a commercial flight.

Right. Had nothing to do with the delay in response. Had nothing to do with
the inadequate oxygen bottles and the late use of the defibrillator.

The doctor at the scene made it clear that he didn't have much to work with.

That's right you moron. It had nothing to do with any of those things
according to news reports. They didn't delay anything. They had 12
functioning bottles of oxygen on board and several doctors as well who
treated her. She just died you moron. You're not one for getting
your facts straight are you?

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
. ..

Sancho Panza wrote:

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:58:35 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:



Justin Case writes:



The Times Story notes it was the oxygen equipment aboard the plane.

So the oxygen equipment has not been maintained (if two devices were
empty).

By someone. If someone is going to print a story like this they
should tell the whole story.


Maybe the airline should be more forthcoming about just what its problem
was.

The airline didn't have a problem. There were qualified medical people
onboard the plane trying to help the woman. She died. People die. She just
happened to die on a commercial flight.


Right. Had nothing to do with the delay in response. Had nothing to do with
the inadequate oxygen bottles and the late use of the defibrillator.

The doctor at the scene made it clear that he didn't have much to work with.



There was nothing wrong with the ozygen bottle or the defibrillator.
They weren't used, because the medical peresonal didn't believe they
were the best course of action.

A defibrillator is used restore normal sinus rhythm to start one that
has stopped. The woman had neither problem.

Additionally, just because the woman or her relatives thought giving her
pure oxygen might help, the MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS felt otherwise.

She had more care available on that plane then she would have had most
anywhere else she might have been.

Sancho Panza writes:

Right. Had nothing to do with the delay in response. Had nothing to do with
the inadequate oxygen bottles and the late use of the defibrillator.

Aircraft are vehicles used for transportation, not hospitals.

The doctor at the scene made it clear that he didn't have much to work with.

See above.

If she had died at work, would it be the office's fault that it didn't have
crash carts or operating theaters? If she had died at a hotel, would it have
been the hotel's fault that it wasn't similarly equipped?

Some types of death come very swiftly, and even if a victim is already in the
hospital, that may not help.

Mr. Travel writes:

It doesn't matter. The AA oxygen didn't have a problem. It is too bad
people rush into ideas based on the initial reports. The followup
reports show a much different story.

It's too bad that journalists make reports without checking all the facts.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sancho Panza writes:


Right. Had nothing to do with the delay in response. Had nothing to do with
the inadequate oxygen bottles and the late use of the defibrillator.


Aircraft are vehicles used for transportation, not hospitals.


That is understood, but the items above are required by law.
Not that agree with the comments about them being bad, just that stating
the plane is not a hospital doesn't mean the equipment isn't required.

Of course, since the AED is only useful in limited cirmcumstances, not
shocking someone could mean it was working as expected. Given the
misinformation from the relatives about the AED, I don't trust their
knowledge of whether the oxygen was empty or useful in this case.