It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lorraine Bayless Death - The Real Questions You should Ask

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 01:26 AM
I have been watching, then participating in, the thread about Lorraine Bayless and her unfortunate death at the facility in which she resided.

With a spoonful of seemingly biased information from a blog, people were inflamed and outraged about a story based largely on emotion, and very little fact.

This thread is to bring light to the dark corners, bring you some real facts, and perhaps get you asking some of the real, hard questions that you should be asking.

I will outline a few for you, then bring you facts, and in doing so, hopefully put a whole different perspective on the issue, while stepping back from the emotional outrage.

Perhaps a different outrage may take it's place, but, that remians to be seen.

BLS - Basic Life Support -Also known as CPR

Upon finding a victim down, the first steps are to assess the victim while summoning help. While you stay with the victim, dispatch someone to call 911.

Look listen feel

Shake the person. Call to them, "Are you ok?"

If no response, feel for a pulse.

Listen for breathing, watch for the chest to rise, feel with your cheek for breathing.

Depending on the results to all of these factors is the actions you take next.

The person has a pulse.

How is their breathing? Passing out does not mean dead or dying. Count the breaths per minute.

The pulse rate, even if slow, can determine agonal rhytm, and CPR can be done with agonal rhytm.

Slow agonal breathing can determine the need for rescue breaths. If the person is choking, agonal breathing is sometimes best left alone, as attempts at rescue breaths may force the offending food item deeper. A simple finger sweep, without digging into the throat, or a visual inspection, can give evidence the food item is too deep.

In this case, pulse, possible choking with a food item deeply lodged. Rescue breathing would likely cause more blockage and completely shut off all breathing.

Wait with the patient after turning them on their side, for help to arrive.

You see, the 911 tape was edited. You only get the part where the 911 operator in half panic starts begging people to do CPR. YOU do not have all the facts.

Why was that cut from the tape? The answers may WELL reveal that no help was really needed, and in fact may have put the 911 operator in a bad light. All speculation, if course, but all answers you should be seeking. Why am I the only one asking these questions?

Next - She wanted everything done. She did not have a DNR Order.

Says WHO? I can wholly promise you, this did not come from the facility she was living in, nor any of their employees. In fact, I can almost guarantee that the facility does not have this on file. They have no need to, they are not a medical facility.

Disclosure of this, from anyone but the daughter, would be a HIPAA violation, a violation of Federal Law, without the consent of the daughter. And that means, DNR or not.

So far, all references I have seen regarding a DNR, or "she wanted everything done" has come from blogs and other talking heads that are trying to manipukate and inflame you emotionally. First, ask yourselves what their underlying intent could be, then ask yourselves why you are so easily manipulated and controlled by these people. MSM or blogs, always double, tripple, quadrouple check your facts.

Next- people stood and watched her die.

This is a bald faced lie. She was still alive, breathing, when EMS arrived.
She was treated on scene, and then transported to the hospital, where ahe was still alive. She died LATER at the hospital, of an undisclosed cause.

You see? We STILL do not have enough information about what happened in the cafeteria, what happened with EMS, and what happened at the hospital. We have no cause of death, and we have, and most likely will never have, an autopsy.

Next - this facility is like an apartment complex, except for the elderly. An Independent living facility, where you have people like concierges, that assist with shopping, travel, daytime activities, parties, movies, group outtings, etc. This is NOT a medical facility, nor is it licensed by the state to provide ANY medical care. Even applying a splint to a fracture is medical care, basic first aid, and can cause a facility such as this, to lose their state licensure.

They are located adjacent to an extended care facility that provides the same concierge type services, and light medical assistance, such as help with daily insulin, which is hard for elderly to read, or reminders on pills, more assistance with mobility issues, etc. They likely do require staff to be trained in BLS Basic Life Support.

Next to that facility, is a Nursing Home, where most people require full assist to get out of bed, are bed or wheelchair bound, vent dependent, need ADL assistance, bathing, eating, getting dressed. Pretty much full attention. Many nursing homes can give tube feedings, catheters, wound care, injectable meds, and even IV meds. If a patient becomes severely ill, they are transported to hospital.

Next - the 911 caller, in her Official capacity at the facility, was NOT a nurse. This is a misidentification by the media, and allowed to perpetrate throughout many stories.

Next, I wilk link multiple supporting sources to back up my statement.
edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: hit post by accident :

edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

Dear Libertygal,

Having taken care of my father in in-home hospice, I know exactly how these things work and understood what had possibly happened. Having said that, if people's assumptions had been right then their emotions and responses would have valid. That we cannot trust the media is clear, that they offer no facts would be silly. We are to learn to discern the difference, not just ignore everything we read. IMHO.

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:08 AM

Fact 1. She is not a nurse in her official capacity at the center. She may be a nurse at another job, or left nursing, yet still have her license. Even without a current license, a lot of nurses continue to identify as nurses.

The staffer was identified today as a resident services
director, not a nurse as previously reported.

Fact 2 and 3, and 4. No one is required to follow instructions of a 911 operator.
Knowing that the facility is not licensed to provide medical care, she was not able or legally allowed to direct anyone to take the 911 call.

Fact 4 - in this seven minute call, and it allegedly took EMS seven minutes to get there, where are the missing portions of the call where the 911 operator assessed the victims' condition before directing CPR, as I outlined in the post above?

1. Is there a pulse? Whats the rate?
2. How is she breathing? How many breaths per minute?
3. Is the patient choking? Have you visually inspected? Finger sweep?

If that is missing, WHY? Do the answers reveal Ms. Bayless was being handled in the best way possible until EMS got there, or, did the 911 operator NOT EVEN ASK. Afterall, 7 minute call, took EMS seven minutes to arrive after dispatch. A LOT of missing VITAL information!

The woman repeatedly rebuffed pleas from the 911
dispatcher during a seven minute call on Feb. 26 to
give the woman CPR or to ask someone else to do it.

Fact 5. The 911 caller and other employees did NOT stand by and watch her die. That is a lie. She died after EMS arrived, assessed her, provided some treatment, packed her up, and transported her to the hospital. She died LATER, at least some time, after arriving at the hospital.

Once again, a LOT of missing vital information. Did EMS try to intubate or check for choking? They don't just throw people in the ambulance and leave.

What treatment did she get at the hospital? What caused her collapse in the cafeteria? What was the cause of death?

Lorraine Bayless, 87, died later that day after being
taken to a hospital by ambulance.

Fact 6. This can be read two ways, but, the way I see it is, they are looking at the 911 operator, as opposed to the behaviour of the person at the facility. It can be seen the other way around, but, as I pointed out above, there are some questions about that call. Where is the rest of the tape? Why was it cut out? If that is the entire tape, what on earth was she thinking to direct CPR BEFORE a proper assessment. "She is not breathing enough" doesn't cut it.

The incident occurred at Glenwood Gardens in
Bakersfield, Calif., and today the police said they were
looking into what occurred during the phone call with
the dispatcher.

Fact 7. If any staff, no matter their capacity, had rendered medical care, the facility could lose their license. This is not about someone "losing their minimum wage job", this is about legal liability of a company that is NOT licensed to provide medical care.

If all three of these facilities are linked, which they do seem to be, all 3 could be shut down for the actions of one. JHACO and State Examining Boards don't play with things like laws and licensure.

If they did provide medical care after any number of others may have peacefully passed away there under the same contractual agreement, the lawyers would be dragging them out to sue, sue, sue! because they didn' t do the same for someone elses loved ones. Do you see the can of worms that opens?

"Independent Living communities do not provide
medical services, as they are not licensed to do so. In
an emergency, staff will call 911 and then wait with the
person in need of assistance. Glenwood Gardens is an
independent living facility which, by law, is not
licensed to provide medical care to any of its
residents," Turner said in a statement.

Fact 8. As many learned during the heated discussions during the Trayvon Martin Case, you are not required to follow the directions of 911 operators.

Halvorson is part of "a special breed," said Bakersfield
Fire Department Battalion Chief Anthony Galagaza.
Dealing with a caller who won't follow directions
happens routinely, he said.

"They go through this a number of times a month," he
told "They give instruction over the
phone (and) at times it's declined, other times it's

Fact 9. This may be true for an individual, however, in the scope of things, irrational, because it does not portent to a facility license, and not providing medical care. This was NOT addressed in the article.

The staffer had nothing to lose legally, he said. All
states have laws protecting good Samaritans, he said.

edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:57 AM
Fact 10. In the other, some educating was done on the realities of CPR. It is not what you see on TV. Now, since we do not know the circumstances surrounding the incident in the cafeteria, we cannot judge whether CPR should have been done on Ms. Bayless.

She may have choked, she may have had low blood pressure and fainted. She may have been hypoglycemic and gone into diabetic shock. She may have had a massive stroke or intracranial hemorrhage. We just don't KNOW.

Laying that aside, lets presume she needed CPR after a proper assessment. Does she have kyphosis? (A humpback) at the base of the neck. If so laying her on her back, clearing her airway, and tilting her head back to open the airway might break her neck. It could break her spine, too, but if it doesn't, chest compressions most certainly will.

The very first chest compression will likely fracture multtiple ribs, possibly the breastbone. If the first compression didn't drive splintered bones into her organs, surely the next rapid, firm, ONE THIRD THE DEPTH OF THE BODY compressions at the rate of 120 per minute WILL.

Now, you have broken her spine, crushed her ribs, and most likely her neck. She might now have a collapsed lung from a rib tearing into at 120 thrusts a minute, shredding it to bits.

But now, you have to grab her fragile, possibly broken neck, and bend it back, do the jaw thrust, and give her breaths. Those breaths may or may not matter, because a collapsed lung won't inflate, and it is rapidly filling with blood. Her broken neck may not even allow passage of air now.

More compressions, another 120 in one minute, collapsing what was left of the remaining barrel if her chest, driving ribs sharps as razors into her underlying organs, nicking and shredding vital organs, maybe even arteries. What was once a one third thickness of her body has changed due to skeletal collapse, and your compressions now feel useless and you feel bones grinding flesh under your hand.

You have just only had a description of two minutes of a potential CPR on this scene.

If reading it disturbs you, imagine hearing it, and doing it, being the one feeling it.

In a full code, you do what you must, then you live with it. There was nothing requiring them, that has been proven, to perform this torture on this poor woman. I think above all, the daughters' approval of the treatment she received should be praised, as her mother was saved undue agony and pain in her final hours.

Caplan said, however, that even if the staffer did
perform CPR, the chances of keeping Bayless alive
were slim. Even when CPR is administered
immediately the chance of recovery is worse than 50-50, Caplan said.

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Libertygal

Dear Libertygal,

Having taken care of my father in in-home hospice, I know exactly how these things work and understood what had possibly happened. Having said that, if people's assumptions had been right then their emotions and responses would have valid. That we cannot trust the media is clear, that they offer no facts would be silly. We are to learn to discern the difference, not just ignore everything we read. IMHO.

I am sorry you had to go through what you did, but Hospice, IMO, is a blessing to allow natural death without all the rescue measures. Home hospice is even better, because it allows loved ones to be close at any time, because we do not know the time.

My problem, in this instance, is not the media per se, though I do have an issue with the media, but the fact that a writing from a blog was used that was almost absent of fact.

I outlined definitevely, the multiple issues I had with this one media story alone, but also linked the factual evidence they did provide, that is common across most of the media stories.

Certainly, it is up to the reader to obtain multiple sources, but in the original thread, I did not see that, but a continual flow if disinformation and fallacy from the blog post.

A good percentage of responders posted emotionally, which the blogger intended. Not one other person brought in any outside facts, or pointed out the lies, until I did.

I think this womans' life deserved that, if nothing more. Her daughter, as well. Horrible things have been said about these people, by those whom have NO right to judge.

It sickens me that people can make such horrible statements and judgements, even wishing death on others, with a story of lies as their truth.

My intent is to change that.

edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:01 AM
I am posting some more information, and some more facts.

Firstly, I think a lot of people are confused as to what a DNR really is.

DNR means simply: do not resuscitate.

Does that mean you just let someone die?

No. Quite the opposite, in fact. People with a DNR are treated just as aggressively as a patient without a DNR. They are given iv medications, food, water, physical therapy. All the same way any normal patient would be treated.

Then what is a DNR? A DNR actually encompasses a number of things, and many hospitals are moving to give patients and families more freedom of choice based on their loved ones' choices or decisions.

A DNR can be:

No chest compressions
No shock
Do Not Intubate
No cardiac rescue drugs
No iv fluids
No tube feeds
No iv antibiotics
No blood transfusions
All of the above

As you can see, DNR is not a simple "let them die" dictum, and is more of an advocacy to conform patient care to the wishes of the family and/or the patient, if the patient has the capacity to make decisions.

If you have concerns about your treatment, or possible health outcomes, you are free to fill out an Advance Directive. They do not require an attorney, and can be filed with your local medical provider for free. It only requires two witnesses to witness your signature, that are not related to you.

An Advance Directive is also known as a Living Will. You can find them free online, or call your local hospital and request one. They are free, legally binding, and a way to make your wishes known to not only your family, but your hopsital, as well.

AND - What is AND? Allow Natural Death. This means that you are still treated like anyone else, but when the time comes that you die, nothing is done. No CPR, no heroic measures, you are simply allowed to die as nature will take you.

Some people want everything done. Some people want some choices on a DNR, but not others. Some people have made the choice to have a living will because it not only lays out
specifically what you want, but it also names an advocate spokesperson to speak on your behalf, in case you become incapable.

This is known as medical durable power of attorney. This healthcare advocate is a part of your Advance Directive, and can be changed at any time by simply filling out a new Advance Directive.

Advance Directives are not required to be filed anywhere. It is helpful to file them with your hospital in the case of an emergency, but not required.

Download your states Advance Directive
This helpful link also has instructions, and can answer any other questions likely not addressed in this post.
edit on 6-3-2013 by Libertygal because: ETA Link

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:24 AM

The CPR Death at Glenwood
Gardens: What Really
Happened and Five Lessons You Should Learn

By now you know the story—or at least think
you do: A nursing home nurse sees an 87-year-old resident in cardiac arrest and calls 9-11.

Except most of the story isn’t true. Lorraine
Bayless lived at a Bakersfield (CA) continuing
care community called Glenwood Gardens, but
in independent living, not in its skilled nursing
facility. She did not die of a heart attack but of a
stroke, according to the death certificate signed
by her personal physician. CPR may have saved
her, but it is very unlikely.

And there is more. Mrs. Bayless did not want
life-prolonging medical interventions, and her
family is fully satisfied with the care she
received. And the staffer who called 9-11 may
not have been a licensed nurse at all.


What emergency care do you want? This may
be the most important question of all. Mrs.
Bayless’ family says she did not want life-prolonging emergency care. It is not clear
whether she had a living will or do not
resuscitate order, or had designated a family
member as her healthcare proxy. But if you are
old enough to be reading this, you should
discuss end-of-life issues with family members
and prepare your own advanced directives.
Right now.


The best outcome for Mrs. Bayless may
have been for the staffer to not call 9-11 at all
but rather to hold her in her arms until she
passed away. But she had to know that.


Finally, lesson No. 5: Don’t believe all the news
you read on the Web.

That really says it all, doesn't it?

Finally, someone out there that seems to be advocating for Ms. Bayless.

Read the entire article, it is really very good.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

Dear Libertygal,

Firstly, thank you for your kind words. I feel blessed to have been able to care for my daughter, know that I did what he wanted and was very fortunate to have the full support of my siblings who lived in other parts of the country and world. One of the hardest moments was being alone with my father when he passed on and knowing in advance how it would happen. It was also very comforting knowing that I could be there, something I will never regret.

As for the blog you are mentioning, I don't know anything about it, I came across the story on multiple mainstream media venues and felt disgusted that they did not give the back story. Even on my own little pitiful blog, I will only comment on stories that I can trace back to a verifiable source, I expect more of the mainstream media that can certainly afford to. I certainly won't rely on some blogger who cannot back up his statements with verifiable information.

I like the fact that you are calling these people to task, perhaps it will improve blogging. When I post on my blog I try and relay stories that others may not have understood the importance of; but, I am primarily focused on what I believe the deeper meaning or trend may be that the story highlights. I put dots together. I do not trust bloggers being independent reports of facts; but, the commentaries are important to me.

It sickens me that people can make such horrible statements and judgements, even wishing death on others, with a story of lies as their truth. My intent is to change that.

What I believe we will see in the future is ISPs and Websites being held accountable for what they allow to be published. This is disturbing, I would rather have FCC controls in place that went after the individual blogger. I know that sounds strange; but, ISPs and Websites will do what is overly safe and cannot be responded to, whereas, the government can be limited in what it does by the vote.

ATS is very good at monitoring and correcting in a reasonable manner and will talk to someone who gets too far out there. At the same time there are a couple of subjects that cannot be discussed at all, like drug use. I respect their right to decide what they will publish. There is another well known site that will allow people to post absolutely anything including profanity, racism, sexism and their is practically NO oversight. A reader with any sense can see the difference and will deny ignorance and come here.

Even on ATS, when I see people saying we should kill the royal family or have an armed uprising, I feel uncomfortable; but, this is the future of communication. I believe the KKK and the Communists should be entitled to talk to one another. If they actively plan and organize to carry out such things then the existing laws should be able to address that.

Sorry if my thoughts have not come together well. Freedom of speech and assembly and of the press are all important and people make mistakes. At the same time, there is such a thing as libel and slander; however, they don't address the internet because they assumed personal communication and mass publication. On the internet I could post something on Facebook, where I only have one friend and have it go viral to millions. Most people do not understand the law regarding these things and do not take the responsibility for being reporters, they talk as they would in person to a couple of their friends. Tough questions arise on all sides, glad you are addressing them.

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by AQuestion

This is the link I am speaking about. The opening post cites a blog, and the absurdity goes from there.

I made this thread for several reasons, but mainly to point out the problems with the blog story, and to open discussion on death related topics, such as DNR and Advance Directives.

I worked with Hospice nurses for about 4 years, and they have to be among some if the strongest and most compassionate I have ever known. They knew every patient was going to pass away, but they found a way to look within and reach out to not just the patient, but their families.

I think that education in anything removes a lot of the fear, and that is one of the things oeople find hard is to face death, and talk about it openly and honestly. Knowing what will happen, why, and what to expect next takes the mystery and fear out of the dying process. In doing so, it allows loved ones to concentrate more on their loved one, as oppsed to what is happening each and every moment.

Just as with every stage of life, death is a process, when handled without fear, to be shared. It is a journey to take alongside a loved one, and one we all will take, as well.

In our society, we hide death from ourselves, speak about it whispers - when we choose to even speak about it at all. In treating it this way, we are doing ourselves, and each other, a huge disservice.

You are blessed to have had the opportunity you did, and it will have an effect on the decisions that you make, not just you, but those close to you. I think it changes life in good ways, though the loss is profound and painful, being there is something no one can take away from you.

As for stopping people from saying what they did on the blog, I stand for their right to say whatever they want, but I will fight back untruths with truth. That's all I have.

They say the pen is mightier than the sword, and so be it. I can only try to make the facts and truth known, and hope people check up on me, too! People should check everything, and not believe any one story.

I spent hours yesterday researching more about Ms. Bayless, and will continue to do so.

Thanks for your sweet post.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:07 PM
Oh, so all those people wailing and tearing out their hair in the other thread were wrong? Good to know.


log in