Bending or Changing the Guidelines

[SWScouter 34]

SeattlePioneer,

 

I don't buy your argument and think it's specious at best. The example is not a swimming activity where SSD needs to be followed; it is a rescue. What does need to be followed is proper lifesaving techniques. Reach, Throw, Row, and Go. Which of the four should be followed and how is what the concern should be in order to safely rescue the drowning swimmer.

 

SWScouter

[Bob White 20]

SWScouter's evaluation is right on the money. In addition I would never tell a scout to go rescue someone. The decision to perform a rescue must be a personal decision of the rescuer. Water rescues are especially dangerous and I cannot imagine any scouter ordering someone else's child into such a situation. A properly trained individual knows their abilities and will enter into a resue they feel they should participate in. This is not the military we do not order scouts into dangerous situations.

 

As SW points out the preplanning a safe swim activity is important but you do not preplan an unexpected emergency, you must rely on training and practice to evalute the situation as quickly as possible and act as appropriatly as you can.

 

You do not disregard safe swim lessons in water resue. You use as many as possible in the situation. You still do not dive into water whose depth you do not know and whose bottom quality you do not know. You still do not enter depths you are not qualified to swim in, you still follow the reach, throw, row, and go with support, priorities that you are taught in BASIC scout skills.

 

Your questions Prairie scouter come not from breaking rules during the rescue but from not knowing the proper training PRIOR to the rescue.

 

To suggest that a scout cannot put his lifesaving skills to use without breaking scouting rules is unsupportable and uninformed.

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Reach, row, throw, and then go; a litany given to all to remember from the lifesaving class. In an emergency situation, you hope and pray that you still know it. When confronted with a drowning person flapping their arms, you hope that there is a pole, a rope, a rowboat or anything by your side and at the ready. You hope that you have a bathing suit on and you do not have to take off gear and clothing first. Being ready to save a life, means that you learn the rules and relearn the rules and relearn the rules. In an emergency situation breaking the rules is what causes the rescuer to drown along with the victim.

 

A person that knows how to swim will not think twice about jumping in fully clothed to save another person. They have learned to swim and that is their inclination. You must carefully retrain a person to think differently for an emergency. The Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat are rules that work for the rescuer and the victim. Breaking or bending the rules can be detrimental to both.

 

I am going to use the word "order" here not because this is the military but because following the rules in an emergency situation is so important. So, order is used as verbalizations to prioritize and organize all behavior in the fastest safest methods of rescue.

 

If a group were to come up on a drowning person, it might be best to order the older Scouts into action if you know the adults are not trained. If the adults are trained, then order the adults to get ready and order the older Scouts to find ropes, branches, anything to reach. There needs to be a person in charge that knows the rules of the situation and controls all behavior by ordering. "Going" is the last thing you want to keep from happening by anyone. Someone needs to keep people from following their impulse to do the easiest thing and that is jump in the water, generally fully clothed.

 

Now when it comes to going, if a Scout were the only person able to do this, I am afraid that I would order a wait until the victim was down before pulling them out. I would then order First Aid, including going for help. This last order is only my thoughts on this issue. Others may feel that this is overly protective and undervaluing of life. I value the life of every Scout and want no harm to come of anyone but I do not want two victems.

 

FB

 

 

[Hunt 11]

In criminal law, there are situations in which actions which would otherwise be criminal are justified--self-defense, use of force to defend another, trespassing to rescue someone, etc. You can mince words over whether the law was actually broken or not--but the point is that there are situations in which the letter of the law becomes inapplicable. I could well take some bravery and leadership to ascertain when such a situation exists.

Second, there are times when a law is unjust, and it is morally defensible to disobey it. But this is not really applicable to the rules of Scouting, because if you really think one of its rules is so morally wrong as to justify disobedience, the appropriate action would be to quit.

 

But I return to my point--it's fairly useless to discuss these concepts in a vacuum. Rather, it's better to discuss particular elements. I think Bob's response to my last post proves the point. Although he says you wouldn't get too far in discussing how often a troop should camp out in order to have a good Outdoor program, he does just that and makes some valid points--that other activities besides campouts can be part of a good outdoor program. You could have a nice discussion on what makes for a good, exciting outdoor program, and how big a part camping should play in that. The conversation doesn't end with what it takes to be a Quality Unit.

[CNYScouter 46]

This topic had kind of gone off on a tangent from what I thought I was asking. Anything to do with Health, Saftey and Youth Protection are rules that should not be alter and was not really the things I was talking about.

So, I decided to spin off a new topic trying to restate what I was asking

[SeattlePioneer 144]

I'm glad to hear that even those most devoted to obeying rules wouldn't let someone drown while they were marking out a swimming area with balloons.

 

But I would be interested in having those who find an exemption to the Safe Swim Defense for rescue situations to show me where that is in the Safe Swim Defense rules themselves, or some other Scout rules that provides an exemption.

 

As I read the SSD rules listed in the Guide to Safe Scouting, it says, " Before a BSA group may engage in swimmming activities of any kind, one adult leader must complete Safe Swim Defense training... and agree to use the eight defenses in this plan."

 

There are no exemptions for emergency rescues that I can find.

 

That's why I continue to suggest that one of the responsibilities of leadership can be to know when to violate a rule. And as I and others have pointed out, that doesn't mean that an emergency means that ALL the SSD should be ignored. Indeed, choosing wisely what to do becomes especially critical in a rescue situation.

 

Ideally, an adult leader will decide what methods of rescue are the best to use, and use reaching or throwing as preferred methods. If that's not possible, determining whether currents, obstructions or rapids make a water rescue worth trying would be an important decision. Choosing the most qualified people to perform such a rescue, and providing them with ropes to aid in rescue would be appropriate.

 

And adult leaders may need to be brave enough to ask or encourage Scouts or qualified people to make a rescue effort, and discuss a rescue plan with them.

 

In short, in a rescue situation I'd use as much of the Safe Swim Defense as I could, but I might decide to violate portions of these rules in order to save a life.

 

As everyone seems to acknowledge, a rescue effort is different than a recreational swim. Rules that require marking out ability levels can be ignored in an emergency, and competent leadership will recognize that fact and choose to dispense with such a rule in order to save a life.

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[FScouter 24]

The time to set up a safe swim defense is before boys get in the water. If that is ignored and a boy is drowning it's too late for defense, it's rescue time. I don't think the Safe Swim Defense rules were written to apply to a rescue situation. It's what you do to prevent the need for a rescue.

[Trevorum 24]

(This is side-bar comment. It is tangentially related to the main thread and not at all to SSD or water resues. But I just couldn't let it go by. Sorry!)

 

Hunt said, "... there are times when a law is unjust, and it is morally defensible to disobey it. But this is not really applicable to the rules of Scouting, because if you really think one of its rules is so morally wrong as to justify disobedience, the appropriate action would be to quit. "

 

Hunt, I respectfully disagree. Few of you will be surprised to learn that I view BSA's exclusionary membership policies are morally wrong. I think they justify disobedience. However, I also think that it would be a mistake to quit; the appropriate action is to work for change. Scouting has some flaws, but it is by far the best character-development program we have for young people.

 

(now back to your regularly scheduled thread...)

 

[Hunt 11]

"Hunt, I respectfully disagree. Few of you will be surprised to learn that I view BSA's exclusionary membership policies are morally wrong. I think they justify disobedience."

 

Here I think you have to distinguish between open and secret disobedience. If, for example, you were to openly defy the exclusionary policies, tell the Council you were doing so, and take the consequences, I can see that as a morally defensible act. This is civil disobedience, and it has a respectable pedigree in this country.

 

On the other hand, to secretly defy the policies would require you to take other morally questionable steps, such as lying on registration forms, etc. I recognize that even secret disobedience can be morally defensible--for example, people who hid Jews from the Nazis were justified in doing so, and in lying about it, in my opinion. (Many people may think that Mark Felt was justified in being "Deep Throat," for another example.) But this, in my mind, is limited to situations where there is not another acceptable alternative, which isn't really the case with membership in an entirely voluntary organization.

[schleining 11]

That is the one of the worst things I have heard a Scout leader say...

Seattle... you would actually teach your Scouts that it is OK to ignore Rules...

So were do you draw that line?

 

Its ok to run a red light... its only a rule.

Its ok to lie to your buddy.. its only a rule (Trustworthy)

 

You have got to be kidding .... ot just trying to get Bobwhites goat...

Please tell us it is the latter....

 

You are a Scout leader and your obligation is to deliver the program for the boys.

Do not mistake your personal agenda with that of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

My goodness... glad you are not a leader in my troop.

 

Jerry

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello, FScouter--

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

It's all very well for people to say that they THINK that the Safe Swim Defense rules don't apply to rescue situations. But the plain language of the rules say that they apply to "swimming activities of any kind", and require specifically that all eight parts be used.

 

How do you read that and decide such rules don't apply to rescue situations? It seems like a flat contradiction of the rules.

 

That doesn't mean I think that rules should be followed which would permit people to drown. It just means that leaders have the responsibility to use good judgement in deciding to ignore some parts of the rules in order to achieve plainly more important purposes. It also means that the rest of the rules should continue to apply and only rules that are necessary to that larger purpose be disregarded.

 

And a Scout group may encounter a distressed swimmer who is not a part of the Scout group, which would easily account for a lack of advanced preparation in meeting the SSD rules.

 

Again, I'm glad to see that no one would observe all eight parts of the SSD and permit a distressed swimmer to drown. But I think it's only fair to conclude that this may well require that leaders decide to disregard certain portions of the rules in order to achieve the larger goals e all agree are more important.

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

[Trevorum 24]

Hunt, you draw an excellent distinction. I agree.

[FScouter 24]

If there is someone flapping around in the water and a rescue was initiated, I'd call that more a rescue activity or drowning activity than a swimming activity. Perhaps it is rationalizing to say that the SSD rules don't apply to drowning or rescue activities?

[Hunt 11]

The law often recognizes necessity as a defense to criminal liability. Thus, for example, if your small plane loses power and you make an emergency landing in my wheatfield, you're not going to be convicted of trespassing, even though it's against the law for you to land your plane on my land without permission.

This is perhaps the analogy to the Safe Swim Defense example that Seattle Pioneer is giving--an emergency can make it necessary to perform acts that would otherwise be prohibited. Would you break into a car to get a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze that was threatening another person's life? Sure you would, and you wouldn't be convicted of a crime for doing it.

However, this idea cannot be readily extrapolated to any situations in which you think a greater purpose will be served by violating the law--to avoid being punished and criticized by others, your evaluation has to match the common understanding. Thus, if you broke into a car to get a fire extinguisher to put out a tiny trash fire in a metal trash barrel, I think you might find the outcome very different.

[Lynda J 10]

I will admit I do fudge on the uniform. I have a hard time expecting a single mother with 3-4 kids to go and spend $38.00 on a pair of pants her son will wear once a week. I would prefer to have him at the meeting in his shirt and a pair of clean jeans. Of course having a uniform isn't even a requirement to be a scout.

Our troop does elections every 6 months. If a boy is elected to a position a second time that is fine. He is elected by the troop. We do have a policy that they can not serve in the same position more than two terms in a row. This simply open it up to letting other boys have a chance.

I think that is boys start calling leaders on what the rules should be and expect the leaders to follow the rules it might set a higher standard for the leaders to follow.