Comments on: Kin: Woman Who Died On Flight Was Ignored

American Airlines Disputes Account Of Man Who Blames Flight Attendant, Faulty Medical Devices

[jwind11]

no one said that everyone around her was liable;

but if the airline could have saved her and did not, than they ARE liable,

a chimp could figure this one out

Posted by joyous88 at 07:08 PM : Feb 25, 2008

You have a lot to learn.

[bm6005]

I''ll bet the ambulance chasers got to this poor lady''s relatives already. I smell a lawsuit!

[jowand]

But just because you happen to be dying somewhere doesn''''t automatically make everyone around you liable. When she bought a ticket on American Airlines, it was for transportation, not health care. Its a family tragedy, not a corporate negligence case.
Posted by random_radar at 07:03 PM : Feb 25, 2008

Why do you think airlines carry "portable" oxgen tanks on their flights

[joyous88]

no one said that everyone around her was liable;

but if the airline could have saved her and did not, than they ARE liable,

a chimp could figure this one out

[random_radar]

"Based upon my experiences with American Airlines, I don''''t doubt for one minute that they were negligent and are now scrambling to cover themselves. Unfortunately, the poor woman died as a result of their negligence.

Posted by cgweaver_nm at 05:49 PM : Feb 25, 2008"

But wait, whose responsibility is it to administer health care if you are dying on an airplane? Of course we want to help those in need, and it is admirable that doctors, nurses, and flight attendants did try.

But just because you happen to be dying somewhere doesn''t automatically make everyone around you liable. When she bought a ticket on American Airlines, it was for transportation, not health care. Its a family tragedy, not a corporate negligence case.

[raneknight]

Charlie Wilson, the spokesman for the airlines said and I quote " There were 12 oxygen tanks on the plane and the crew checked them before the flight took off to make sure they were working, Wilson said. He said at least two were used on Desir" I work at a medical facility and at even 12 liters per min those tanks should last 30mins to 1 hr. If the attempt to revive the patient lasted that long, why didn''t they divert and land to get advanced life support care? Why were at least two used? Perhaps because they wern''t functioning properly or the crew wasn''t skilled in using them?

[cgweaver_nm]

Based upon my experiences with American Airlines, I don''t doubt for one minute that they were negligent and are now scrambling to cover themselves. Unfortunately, the poor woman died as a result of their negligence.

[brian4130]

I am sorry for what appeared to have happened to this passenger but as a Flight Attendant our first concern is passenger safety. This nonsense about not providing oxygen or bottles were not working is incorrect. I know that each aircraft has suffient amount of oxygen bottles and it is accesseble at all times.Plus the emergency equiptment is checked if it is the first flight of the day and when there is a crew change. I strongly believe the Flight Attendants did all what was required of them to do and utilized the intense training they received and put them to use. The family members are just looking for a fast dollar at American Airlines expense. I have seen it to many times where you assist a passenger and that same passenger should receive the oscar for their dramatization. I am proud to be a Flight Attendant and those Flight Attendants onboard that flight did everything that is within procedures. I support the Flight Attendants.

[shogl]

Very few people in this whole affair get beyond knee-jerk reactions.
(1) The airline spokesman rushes in with a self-serving statement; how can an investigation of such an incident be completed in so short a time.
(2) One of the family members accuses the airline of not following proper procedures. Again, a rush to judgment.
(3) Last, but by no means least, most of the comments posted so far rant and rave -- and likewise rush to judgment. Almost as bad are the comments that go way off course.

[slim1h2o]

This is what you said. And, you do not not do good deeds because you think the person might be ungrateful or greedy. You do good deeds because it is the right thing to do.

Posted by whatithink at 04:42 PM : Feb 25, 2008

I agree!!! And there is "Good Samaritan Laws" out there that say,,in affect,,,If you stop to help someone, even if you do harm through lack of training, or knowledge, and you had the persons best interests at heart, or at least tried to help, that you can''t be sued.
Volunteer organisations work under this law, every day.