Should cruise ships have lifeguards ???

[Jane2357]

I don't think anyone here is "judging" the family - this is a constructive dialog concerning an accident - which is just that - accidental. That being said the responsibility was directly on this family to keep the child with them and safe - and they failed to do so. How do you let a 4 yr old, on a ship, out of your site? Had the child climbed the rail and gone overboard what good would having a life guard have done? You can't guard against every contingency - but parents can be responsible for their own children.

 

Look about on your next cruise and you will see parents sitting at the bar with their backs to their children, oblivious to their actions, small children running about with no adult in sight. The mentality for too many parents is that the ship, the crew, even other passengers are watching. There are many dangers on a ship for an under supervised child and the parents are on vacation. THERE IS NO VACATION FROM BEING A PARENT, if you need a break to the point that you forget to watch your child because you are in vacation mode - then leave the children at home.

[Laney219]

You need to do the research on this one because the media got it all wrong back then and people continue to trot this out as an example of frivolous lawsuits. (hint: it was not)

 

Regarding the lifeguards, I think Maria (Islander500) makes some good points in her post.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I did do my research prior to posting and stand by my opinion. No beverage, water or coffee, is meant to be held between the legs/ knees.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[Hlitner]

The lifeguard issue is raised every time there is a drowning or near-drowning on any ship. The same issue comes up even more often in regard to hotel/motel pools that seldom have any lifeguard. When I was a paramedic (many years ago) it was heart wrenching to deal with drownings at motels and homes. But from the perspective of a pool owners, it is a very tough call. If you hire a lifeguard then you assume full legal responsibility for whatever happens at the pool. But by not having a lifeguard and posting such information, it arguable relieves the owner of much of the legal risk.

 

The really sad reality is that parents need to take full responsibility for their children and keep them under constant supervision. There are still plenty of drownings at pools (and the beaches) where there are lifeguards on duty...because lifeguards are human and cannot have their eyes everywhere at every moment. And there is another issue when it comes to lifeguards on cruise ships. Once the cruise line moves to that level of supervision it also means the lifeguard has to take full control of all the activities that happen in and around the pool. The lifeguard, in a sense, becomes like a traffic cop and while many cruisers would love this level of supervision, there will be plenty of others who start complaining that "they are ruining our fun."

 

Hank

[NightOne]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I did do my research prior to posting and stand by my opinion. No beverage, water or coffee, is meant to be held between the legs/ knees.

 

Especially not 190 degree ones that should be served at a much lower temperature. I mean 3rd degree burns and you still think that is OK ???

 

Bottom line: Lawsuit was not frivolous.

 

I just do not like seeing this over-simplified factually misrepresented McDonald's coffee lawsuit to continue to be thrown out there as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

 

I'll agree to disagree and move on. :)

[Swampbabe]

While I would support lifeguards at the pools, I'm not sure passengers would be at all happy with the changes that would need to be made to the pool decks to make it happen. As a former lifeguard and lifeguard instructor, IMO three major changes (in addition to the ones already mentioned) would have to happen:

 

1) The area immediately surrounding all pools would have to be kept clear of any obstructions (passengers, drinks, chairs, etc.) so that the guards had unobstructed access and movement around the pool.

 

2) each pool would have to have at least one elevated lifeguard tower/chair on each side of the pool to give the guard the ability to look down at the pool to see the bottom at all times, and

 

3) Pool capacity would have to be strictly enforced - guards need to be able to segment the pool into visual zones and be able to do continuous "head counts" in each zone.

 

This post is spot on. I don't think that most folks understand the totality of the situation. Those pools are so crowded and can you imagine the hue and cry when a lifeguard told you to get out of the pool. Where would you put lifeguard stands. Lifeguards also rotate around the pool deck in 15 min increments with 15 min off so you would need more on duty than you think.

[Laney219]

Especially not 190 degree ones that should be served at a much lower temperature. I mean 3rd degree burns and you still think that is OK ???

 

Bottom line: Lawsuit was not frivolous.

 

I just do not like seeing this over-simplified factually misrepresented McDonald's coffee lawsuit to continue to be thrown out there as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

 

I'll agree to disagree and move on. :)

 

Would the burns have occurred if the coffee was on a table while putting in the cream and sugar?! Maybe. Would they have occurred on her inner thighs/perineum? Highly unlikely.

My point is personal accountability. If the coffee was placed on a table instead of a place it is not intended to go, there is less of a chance for the burns to have occurred in the first place. That is why I said the lawsuit was frivolous. (and yes we can agree to disagree)

 

There will be a lawsuit in this case. Nearly everyone can 'smell' it. My point is that the mother lost sight of her child. Horrible yes. But if not for that action, the outcome would (hopefully) be different.

 

Personal accountability.

[sail7seas]

I don't think cruise ships need life guards. Presumably parents are watching their children and if an adult should get in trouble in the water, I have to think a few responsible people might lend a hand getting them out of the pool and call for help.

 

[luddite]

In a word: No.

[sail7seas]

Had there been lifeguards on these cruise ships, I think it's safe to say that many of these tragic incidents would have not occurred.

 

But there are pools everywhere, resorts, hotels...even the neighbors back yard. Many, without "lifeguards". As parents, we must be vigilant, and that is the bottom line. Should RCI chose to add them, or any cruise line for that matter, I would welcome that decision. Any additional safeguards that could potentially save the life of a child should be applauded.

 

That said, it changes nothing for me. My daughter has been thru the entire Red Cross program of swim classes, yet I still never take my eyes off of her when she is in a pool....lifeguard or not....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

 

You are very wise to keep your eyes on your daughter.

The very best swimmers, child or adult, can get a cramp, swallow water, have an event that causes a pool emergency. Just because the child/person is a good swimmer is no reason to not monitor them at all times while in the pool.

 

[navybankerteacher]

 

To argue that adding lifeguards is going to backfire is absurd. Do you really think that adding lifeguards is going to cause more accidents and drownings? I was on Oasis this past week and I went on a tour with one of the officers. He went on and on about how Royal Caribbean goes out of their way for safety. Adding life guards is only going to help this.

 

The sad fact is that some parents will rely upon the presence of a lifeguard and will pay less attention to their children when they are some place where such responsibility can be delegated (abdicated). Adding lifeguards may not directly "cause more accidents and drownings" - but it is virtually certain to result in reduced parental oversight --------- and that reduced parental oversight is why many children drown.

[Ladyinflight]

Parents should be held responsible for safe guarding their own children!

 

I agree with you. Lifeguards would only make a lot more parents lazy about watching their child.

[Warm Breezes]

Sometimes an accident is just that an accident. Children sometimes "escape" the watchful eye of their parent and we can only hope there are enough people around a ship's pool to prevent an accident such as this from happening....having said that the ultimate responsibility remains with the parent and I'm sure even having life guards on board, accidents such as this would still happen as they can't prevent them all from happening. The article stated that there many of these types of accidents lately but it seemed to me there have only been a handfull....I wonder what that comparrison is to these same types of accidents at land pools. While one is too many, my thinking is it is low compared to land pools with or without life guards. It is a hazard of having a pool that all parents need to be aware and concientious of when they have their children around them.

 

My DD(17) works at campground that has a swimming pool with no life guard. She works activities and one of her jobs is to stop in the pool area at least once an hour at different times and make everyone under the age of 13, I believe, it could be older, get out and go stand by the adult who is supposed to be watching them. If they do not have an adult present then she has to make them leave of the pool area. It is posted that they do not have a life guard and that kids under a certain age must be supervised by an adult to be in the pool. While I don't think Life Guards are necessary on cruise ships with the amount of people that always seem to be around the pool and with parents needing to be responsible for their kids, maybe this is a way to keep unsupervised kids out of the pool. I do think there should always be a couple employees who work around the pool area to be trained in CPR in case an accident does occur.

[LauraLL]

A resounding YES.

The theory that the presence of a lifeguard will make an otherwise observant parents become “lazy” and not supervise their children is nonsense. If you are a parent that acknowledges the dangers of pools and monitors your children, you will CONTINUE to be a diligent parent regardless if a lifeguard is present. If, on the other hand, you are a negligent parent you will CONTINUE to be negligent. The only difference is those children who happen to have a negligent parent, may have their life saved by a life guard.

For me, if the presence of a lifeguard has the possibility to save one child’s life it is definitely worth having them at the pools.

[janetz]

Yes.

[Capt_BJ]

A resounding YES.

The theory that the presence of a lifeguard will make an otherwise observant parents become “lazy” and not supervise their children is nonsense. If you are a parent that acknowledges the dangers of pools and monitors your children, you will CONTINUE to be a diligent parent regardless if a lifeguard is present. If, on the other hand, you are a negligent parent you will CONTINUE to be negligent. The only difference is those children who happen to have a negligent parent, may have their life saved by a life guard.

For me, if the presence of a lifeguard has the possibility to save one child’s life it is definitely worth having them at the pools.

 

Your cruise cost just went up $500 per person . . . .

 

reaction?

[NMLady]

Fear that lifeguards would give a false sense of safely.

Best for parents to carefully watch their children when they are in ANY pool.

LuLu

 

I agree. If there were lifeguards some parents would leave their kids at the pool, figuring the life guards would watch them.

[Karysa]

My kids are adults but I think (and have thought this way in several of these types of threads over the last few years sadly) that lifeguards should be the law on cruise ships with pools.

 

Rock climbing walls have qualified staff and so do the ice rinks so it only makes sense that the pools are supervised by qualified staff members.

[cruisemom42]

Yes, I think there should be lifeguards.

 

For all those who insist that adding a lifeguard would increase the inattentiveness of parents, can you point to any instance of this occurring?

 

Disney ships apparently have lifeguards -- have we heard a plethora of stories of inattentive parents and near drownings on Disney?

 

We are talking about the LIFE and safety of anyone swimming. (Adults drown too, especially those who may be alcohol impaired.) I personally am willing to suffer whatever little curtailment of my "rights" might ensue if a lifeguard were to tell me I had to wait to enter the pool because it was too crowded. That's why we, as a society, have rules in general. To safeguard us.

 

It's also worth noting that there was an instance reported not too long ago here on CC of a drowning that occurred while the parent was actually in the pool with the child. Drownings happen quite quickly at times. Perhaps having a trained lifeguard familiar with rescue and CPR (instead of volunteers whose CPR skills are untested) might have saved the life of that child. And perhaps others as well.

[ontheweb]

Your cruise cost just went up $500 per person . . . .

 

reaction?

 

The price of oil has plummeted. Your cruise cost just went down $500. Oh wait, it's the law of supply and demand that determines prices.

[DirtyDawg]

I'm biased on this subject. All our three boys are/were lifeguards. Pools are dangerous places. All our boys have saved multiple lives each over the years. Darn YES cruise ships should have lifeguards! The liability that cruise lines expose themselves to and the risk they expose their customers to by having pools on-board without proper professional supervision is scary to say the least. Layer on top of that, cruise lines sell booze to customers in the same area as the pools, increasing the risks for everyone.

 

Cruise lines employ professionals to entertain, provide hotel services, operate and maintain the 'plant', and drive the ship. Now is the time for cruise lines hire professionals to safeguard their customers in one of the most dangerous areas of the ship - the pools!

Edited January 6, 2015 by DirtyDawg

[navybankerteacher]

Yes, I think there should be lifeguards.

 

For all those who insist that adding a lifeguard would increase the inattentiveness of parents, can you point to any instance of this occurring?

 

 

Yes: in towns where I have lived both municipal pools and country club pools regularly experience young children being dropped off by their parents - who then go elsewhere - presumably relying on the presence of lifeguards to look after ther children. That simply does not happen at unprotected beaches,neither on pond/lakes or the shore.

 

Of course, a higher degree of safety will exist at any swimming facility if lifeguards are present - and there will virtually certainly be fewer tragedies - but it is undeniable that the presence of lifeguards does contribute to parental insttention --- and it is also undeniable that drownings have occurred at facilities where there were lifeguards.

 

Yes, lifeguards on cruise ships would most likely add safety - but that addition would come in the face of increased parental irresponsibility.

[SherriZ366]

There will be a lawsuit in this case. Nearly everyone can 'smell' it. My point is that the mother lost sight of her child. Horrible yes. But if not for that action, the outcome would (hopefully) be different.

 

Personal accountability.

James Walker has been posting on his Cruise Law blog. He would probably love to get a possible lawsuit.

[Lerin]

No, we all shouldn't have to pay extra for parents who can't watch their kids.

[dsrdsrdsr]

There shouldn't be a law that all ships have lifeguards. If I travel on an 800-passenger ship, with two pools, I would not appreaciate the crew levels going up by half a dozen or so just to provide lifeguards - especially as it would certainly mean pool opening hours reduced. But then, I don't travel on ships with vast numbers of children.

 

Why not try this: ships with lifeguards are allowed to advertise that they have lifeguards; ships without lifeguards make it clear in the brochure that their pools are unsupervised. Then allow all people, parents included, to make their choice.

[DirtyDawg]

No, we all shouldn't have to pay extra for parents who can't watch their kids.

 

But of course we all LOVE to pay extra for those other other things on a cruise ship we never use......

 

Like the second Lobster some people love to have, or the mile high pile of beacon taken at the buffet, or the staff needed to run those bingo and trivia games , or those overpaid and under-talented singers and dancers.;)

 

Why not hire some lifeguards and get rid of those universally horrible comedians?;) And throw in all those comedian wannabe Cruise Directors also!:D

Edited January 6, 2015 by DirtyDawg