Apparently, the events as first described the family member was inaccurate. It seems odd that this family member was so outspoken against the facts.

It will be interesting as this develops what will change with in-flight medical emergencies. According to the CNN report, she could have had an allergic reaction so severe that it obstructed her airway causing her to be unable to breathe. And she was thirsty and sweating post-prandially that could be suggestive of hyperglycemia in the context of possible insulin resistance.

I am partially making my call on this statement:

So neither O2 or AED would have made a lot of difference in this case... That is really sad.

Thanks for the link Dolphin.

Relatives of this person are not good objective witnesses as a general rule because of their emotional connection to the deceased/injured and also because of the prospect of a financial settlement.

I do not wish the deceased ill and God rest her soul, but since we are talking about accountability here let's just be honest about the fact that the head shots of her on the news indicate she was morbidly obese. Add in existing medical conditions and she was a ticking time bomb. Unluckily for the airline, the bomb went off a few thousand feet in the air.

It makes sense that a person in this medical condition died.

It does not make sense that a plane full of passengers and a trained crew failed to do all they reasonably could in the circumstances.

My bet is that there will be a decent sized settlement out of court. It will all be about the airline deciding whether the cost of settling now will outweigh the cost of lost business and general ill will in the long run among the general public. It will have nothing to do with actual culpability.

I agree^^^

I will be asking my FIL who is a cardiologist who would know these issues. But both my husband and I asking where is the insulin stick? Because she was more likely to have that issue vs. a outright myocardial infarction. I am not saying she did NOT have sudden cardiac arrest, but her issue was hyperglycemia and conduction is not as good through hyperosmolar blood. That may the reason why the AED did not deliver desired results... O2 would have been better after reviving. But hyperglycemia is nasty to what it does to blood.

Agree.
Deep pockets and our legal system at work.:(
Truth be told, the family will most likely end up with less that what their attorney will get;)
However, if it goes to trial I for one would love to be on the jury:D

Okeeey... My FIL said that apparently the woman had her own O2 tank. But the airlines like folks to use their tanks as a restriction. She possibly had a respiratory illness requiring O2. Because it is a ~10 hour flight, why she failed to request a full O2 tank is beyond comprehension. And because it is a high altitude flight (because of the distance), even under compression there is less O2 around and for someone to have a respiratory illness with reduced O2 bad combination and dangerous, overall.

Apparently in other news articles, they are saying that the Dr. (Sulkin) said that the first tank malfunctioned and was empty... What would be the reason why he would be wrong? (according to my FIL).

Essentially, as everyone can see she was obese and type 2 diabetic. It is likely she had Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). That with a respiratory illness with a medical requirement for O2, EVERYTIME THERE IS AN EMERGENCY O2 IS USED--STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE!!! The reason is "RBC surface area" and loading it with O2... Lack of oxygenated blood that runs through the heart RAPIDLY causes cardiac dysfunction.

Defib would not work very well without O2 blood at high altitudes or hypoxic conditions...

That is how a board certified cardiologist calls it...

It is sad, but that is why the airline is saying 12 tanks. Improper procedures may be involved here, but the family may not get much support. :(

Please do post what you find out.

On the issue of the insulin stick- this raises a new question I would pose to you and others.

On insulin sticks- what if an airline had them in stock and then gave one to a person in an emergency and the person died of insulin shock or some other reaction?

I ask because it seems to me there is a whole other level of liability involved if a good samaritan administers a potential cure to someone that is beyond their own personal expertise to administer and the person suffering dies as a result of the attempted cure.

Or is there? I don't know.

It just seems to me that with a portion of the population having a potential reaction to insulin, any airline employee who administered it (or anyone who did so without an MD or RN and a knowledge of the patient history or how to deal with a bad reaction) would be open to additional liability.

My gut reaction is that the answer is kind of like the no-tolerance policy in many schools right now where administrators mitigate legal liability by not allowing any kind of situational judgement calls that could bring legal questions into play.

Disclaimer: I believe insulin sticks are based on weight... At least with diabetic coma you can give glucose or sugar as fast as they can digest it... I did that with a mouse before when for some reason we added to much insulin on fasted animals and my mutant mouse which has a body fat problem pooped out on me but were not hyperphagic--or don't pig out.

According my FIL ANY physician who has passed the USMLE, did a residency and got boarded in an area should KNOW how to treat in an emergency... Maybe they cannot do a specific neurosurgery, but to administer simple drugs, give O2, take a pulse, draw blood, basic dressing--they should know... Some may not, but then they get filtered out of the scene... Chit, I can do some basic surgery, administer some drug through the skin (and tail veins ;) ) and administer a drip--but I would NEVER do it to a person. Unethical.

Someone without official training did make the call on O2 administration to this passenger. She really did not have the MEDICAL EXPERTISE to refuse O2 even if her airline rules and training stated differently. SOP of ER services is to deliver O2... That's standard of care...

So now the airline has to consider how to be an ER? I dunno? :confused:

Good discussion! :)

That would be terrible and a perfect example of "no good deed goes unpunished".

Airline employees are simply that, airline employees. They cannot be expected to be paramedics as well. Basic first aid/CPR? Sure. Anything beyond that, it's the risk you take when you are somewhere that paramedics/911 can't respond.

If there is a lawsuit and they win, it's as ridiculous as the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself.

Several links about the Mc Coffee case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
"The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]settlement[/COLOR][/COLOR] which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California"
http://www.okbar.org/public/judges/mcdonaldsoutline.pdf

Point well taken!

Eye witnesses can see things differently of course.

But, the question would be the timing of lack of help in a proper manner.

She may have already have been deceased.

CPR has changed from the old 5-3 as I was trained with the Ski Patrol and is now more breaths to compressions.

So, who is going to admit who was in error?

The part in the article Dolphin linked to had a quote that concerned me.

Maybe I am reading into it too much, but this is what I know of AEDs. They look for a "shockable" rhythm (usually pulseless v-tavh or v-fib). It will not shock if it is "asystole" (flat line). So, I wonder what the actual rhythm was that it didn't work.

Dealing with death at 30,000 feet
 

Dealing with death at 30,000 feet

In-flight fatalities give passengers an up-close view of human frailty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23395706/
NEW YORK - When Rubina Husain's husband died aboard an airliner, she shielded her 10-year-old daughter's eyes so she wouldn't see her daddy's body carried through the cabin.
Then, with the corpse covered up and tucked away in a rear galley, the passengers who had stood around and stared after the man collapsed returned to eating and chatting. The Athens-to-New York jetliner continued on to its destination for eight or nine more hours. And the in-flight movie was shown as planned.
"It felt like a never-ending flight," says Husain, whose husband died in 1998 after an asthma attack. "I felt like: Why doesn't this plane just crash and kill me? Why don't I just die?"...........

F/U to original posting:
......."Decades ago, in the early days of commercial flight, all stewardesses were nurses. Now, the FAA mandates that flight attendants receive non-professional-level training in such methods as CPR, but they are not required to be able to use the syringes and intravenous drips in onboard medical kits.
Northwest said that doctors, nurses or paramedics are aboard an estimated 96 percent of its flights. MedAire said medical professionals stepped forward to help in 48 percent of the more than 17,000 medical situations it was called on to help with last year."......
"Desir's husband and two children, ages 23 and 10, have hired a law firm to investigate the death of the Brooklyn nurse.
"My wife died on the plane," her husband, Mario Fontus, told The Associated Press. "And I want to know what happened on that plane."
Airline defends response after in-flight death

Relative claimed faulty gear; American said flight crew ‘acted admirably’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23327116/

Can you imagine having to sit on a flight for 8-9 hours after your spouse has died and been stuffed somewhere else "convenient" on the plane? That must be horrid.