Why no life guards??

[B6ConMe]

You'll never convince the folks that want to have all of their problems taken care of for them.

Once you post life guards, the cruise line accepts liability for the safety of the child/adult. As long as they don' have an outright dangerous situation the fact is that the parents are responsible, as they should be. As I said before, the parents would never stand for their little Johnny/Sally being reprimanded by the hired help. As soon as you tried to kick one of them out of the pool they would be with the Hotel Director demanding money for their kids "trauma".

 

Exactly!

[Charles4515]

You'll never convince the folks that want to have all of their problems taken care of for them.

Once you post life guards, the cruise line accepts liability for the safety of the child/adult. As long as they don' have an outright dangerous situation the fact is that the parents are responsible, as they should be. As I said before, the parents would never stand for their little Johnny/Sally being reprimanded by the hired help. As soon as you tried to kick one of them out of the pool they would be with the Hotel Director demanding money for their kids "trauma".

 

The cruise line if it has pools is liable whether there are lifeguards or not. There have been two drownings this year that are known. Cruise lines should have lifeguards at their pools. There is a reason there is that occupation. The reason they don't have lifeguards is not a liability issue. It is that they don't want to pay the costs of having them.

[mdwcruises]

I think it's smart for cruise lines not to have life guards. Less cost and less liability. Double win.

 

And I will say I think it is good for passengers too. Seeing a life guards may give some a false sense if security. It's better to make it clear you are responsible for your own safety right from the start.

[Charles4515]

I think it's smart for cruise lines not to have life guards. Less cost and less liability. Double win.

 

And I will say I think it is good for passengers too. Seeing a life guards may give some a false sense if security. It's better to make it clear you are responsible for your own safety right from the start.

 

In other words all lifeguards all over the world should be fired.....that is the logic of your position. Sorry I am not buying it. Lifeguards are good for the passengers. They are trained to respond and they are trained to prevent drownings.

[allison0523]

Also lifeguards are designed to prevent by vigilance, keeping potential problems from becoming tragedies. Lifeguards are really one of the only castmembers at disney that can tell guests NO without fear of management retribution or usually they don't.

 

If you have gotten to the point that cpr training is needed you have reached the level of a tragedy.

 

And in my experience cpr is often of little value. Prevention is better than compressions.

Of course prevention is better than having to administer CPR, but what exactly is your "experience" with CPR? If it's of such little value, why does the American Heart Association spend loads of money promoting it?

[mdwcruises]

In other words all lifeguards all over the world should be fired.....that is the logic of your position. Sorry I am not buying it. Lifeguards are good for the passengers. They are trained to respond and they are trained to prevent drownings.

 

I think life guards are most useful on beaches where natural dangers are harder to predict, rip currents, waves, tides, sudden drops in the sand, what not.

 

On a well controlled environment such as a tiny pool on a crowded ship, the benefit is marginal ... IF not offset by making passengers, especially parents less vigilant.

[Charles4515]

Of course prevention is better than having to administer CPR, but what exactly is your "experience" with CPR? If it's of such little value, why does the American Heart Association spend loads of money promoting it?

 

I think saying it is of little value is a poor choice of words..... but many may not understand that the survival rate is low among those who receive CPR. At that point it's almost always too late. That's "almost". It is deemed of value to save those few who can be saved even though the percentage saved is low. I have read only between 5 and 20 per cent.

[Charles4515]

I think life guards are most useful on beaches where natural dangers are harder to predict, rip currents, waves, tides, sudden drops in the sand, what not.

 

On a well controlled environment such as a tiny pool on a crowded ship, the benefit is marginal ... IF not offset by making passengers, especially parents less vigilant.

 

I don't think much of your opinion. A person can drown in two inches of water. People drown in pools, children drown in pools, not only at beaches. Lifeguards are useful at pools, not just beaches.

[mdwcruises]

I don't think much of your opinion.

 

Like wise. And looks like almost all cruise lines don't find life guards beneficial either.

Edited October 31, 2013 by mdwcruises

[molole]

You'll never convince the folks that want to have all of their problems taken care of for them.

Once you post life guards, the cruise line accepts liability for the safety of the child/adult. As long as they don' have an outright dangerous situation the fact is that the parents are responsible, as they should be. As I said before, the parents would never stand for their little Johnny/Sally being reprimanded by the hired help. As soon as you tried to kick one of them out of the pool they would be with the Hotel Director demanding money for their kids "trauma".

 

Well said. I can totally see that happening, some taking undue advantage and letting their kids run wild.

 

And no thanks.

Edited October 31, 2013 by molole

[molole]

I think it's smart for cruise lines not to have life guards. Less cost and less liability. Double win.

 

And I will say I think it is good for passengers too. Seeing a life guards may give some a false sense if security. It's better to make it clear you are responsible for your own safety right from the start.

 

That is a really good point. Nothing is more effective than taking responsibility for one self.

[karoo]

A six year old boy actually drowned earlier this month on one of the CCL ships.

 

Yes a six year old boy did drown who was under the supervision of his 10 year old brother. Very sad I know, but it all comes down to parental supervision. Not supervising your kids while they are in playing/swimming in water is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Life guards are not needed if parents do their job properly.

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[legion3]

I have administered multi person cpr 5 times in my coast guard career. 4 drownings and 1 heart related issue. None made it. I know several other times it was employed. I have heard of only once has the person been revived at the scene. And that person died 3 days later.

 

That is my "experience". And I think a 5-20 % survival rate is being overly generous.

 

As a lifeguard both at a pool and open water I have been lucky that we were able to prevent the need to get to cpr. I once had a choking toddler but thank goodness we were able to dislodge the obstruction fairly quickly. A few other injuries requiring first aid and transport to a hospital but nothing terribly life threatning.

 

They attempted cpr on the 6 year old on the valor without success.

[legion3]

I think saying it is of little value is a poor choice of words..... but many may not understand that the survival rate is low among those who receive CPR. At that point it's almost always too late. That's "almost". It is deemed of value to save those few who can be saved even though the percentage saved is low. I have read only between 5 and 20 per cent.

 

Perhaps a poor choice of words, however its value is extremly limited in what it can do. Your own quoted stats show that. However I did not say it was of NO value. Even one life saved is worth the training. So far it seems that at least for heart issues the AED's if used quickly have a better overall, and its not great either, survival rate.

 

To be terribly honest cpr allowed us, the rescuers, to be busy and gave the hysterical or shocked onlookers time to calm down and frankly prepare for the worst.

 

And as awful as that sounds it was very valuable.

Edited October 31, 2013 by legion3

[legion3]

Sorry but I got to say one more thing.

 

All of you speaking of personal responsibilities, taking responsibility for your own action s and parents doing their jobs...

 

Having been in the life saving world since the late 80's I can tell you that is not the world we live in today. Not at all.

 

I agree with you but there it is. With or without lifeguards.

 

Cruise ships should have lifeguards. Hotels should have lifeguards.

Disney does, sort of, water parks do. People complain all the time about what the lifeguard said to little johnny. If management has your back...if they don't? Well thats the question.

 

Of course if major tort reform is ever passed then corporations will certainly bottom line what a life is worth. Many do already.

[Dolphins]

I think life guards are most useful on beaches where natural dangers are harder to predict, rip currents, waves, tides, sudden drops in the sand, what not.

 

On a well controlled environment such as a tiny pool on a crowded ship, the benefit is marginal ... IF not offset by making passengers, especially parents less vigilant.

 

I totally agree with your opinion. The best lifeguard for a child is a responsible parent who doesn't have to worry about all the other children.

[allison0523]

Well, your experience is your experience and someone else may have a different one. My experience in using CPR is with a high volume urban 911 system where we see 1-2 full arrest scenarios each day. We have had 2 men at work that have went into cardiac arrest and were saved most likely with early CPR with no neurological deficits. The overall stats may not be that encouraging but it's worth the effort to try.

But, in a drowning scenario, things are much more complicated with water entering the lungs and making gas exchange very difficult or impossible.

Anyways, I am neither for or against lifeguards on these ships. But I think that the cruise lines should have some obligation to make things as safe as possible for people. That being said, I don't think they should allow so many people in these pools or allow rough housing in the pools. And maybe they should provide some life jackets for use in the pools.

Edited October 31, 2013 by allison0523

[legion3]

I never suggested not to try.

 

Nor did I suggest cpr was not a valuable training technique.

 

But there is a huge difference between a lifeguard who trains for this and a regular crewmember who gets training once a year,

No one should have a false confidence or false sense that there are plenty of cpr trained people in a pool area.

 

Being in the pool area and lifeguarding are totally different types of work.

 

Does anybody really want to rely on the waiter or bartender to keep them from drowning?

[allison0523]

I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. Are you for lifeguards or against?

[Anniesails]

I may have missed this post but thought I would mention it anyway. Carnival recently had a death by drowning of a 6 yo boy while in a pool with his 10 year old brother and other family members. The DJ saw the kid had drowned. All you need is a couple of inches of water to drown, it doesn't matter if they are packed in like sardines. :(

[mpk218]

Get rid of all the pools , wall up the balconies , stop serving alcohol , prepare all foods to be of adequate size to prevent choking. And make all ports self contained public areas fenced off from the native inhabitants .

Oh , and wash all the laundry in scent free hypoallergenic detergent.

One more , if your caught smoking you will be dispatched .( With a lead free bullet or yelled at in a very stern way ) .

 

Are we safe yet ??

 

Life , go figure ;)

[Barb Nahoumi]

I think the whole ship should be enclosed in steel mesh netting, because more people have gone over board than have drowned in cruise ship pools........has anyone ever drown in a cruise ship pool?? ...as in dead drowned???

 

Yes, sadly a little boy drowned recently in a Carnival ship pool. According to some reports, his father and older brother were with him.

[Orleanscruiser]

One they are not needed, secondly the pools are always busy and have a million eyes on it, thirdly NCL would more liable for any accidents.

 

And as for kids where the hell are the parents, they should be looking after them.

 

 

Million eyes watching and a 6 years old boys drowned on carnival,

Maybe it's time to change strategis

[terrydtx]

Million eyes watching and a 6 years old boys drowned on carnival,

Maybe it's time to change strategis

 

More passengers have died falling over board from ship balconies than have drowned in ship's pools. Do you advocate putting wire cages around all open balconies? It was tragic about the 6 year old boy but having a life guard at that pool would most likely have not changed the outcome and that's the reality of this. The boys father was in the pool with his son and he still died.

[Irene7]

Like wise. And looks like almost all cruise lines don't find life guards beneficial either.

 

It's too early to say. Usually as soon as one cruise lines makes a change others follow. In this case I could see cruise lines that cater to families also adding lifeguards to the family pools to show they care about the children as much as Disney does. We will have to wait and see if any changes are made in the next few months.