Update: 12/21/09 - 12:39 pm: Eutisha Rennix mother blasts the EMT Service for not helping her daughter.
"People were calling out saying, 'She's turning blue! She's pregnant!' " said one of the witnesses. "I remember them saying they couldn't do anything because they were on their break," another worker said. "We started screaming and cursing at them."
The woman eventually started foaming at the nose and mouth.
Eventually, 911 was called and the ambulance arrived. By that time, it was too late to save Rennix. She was pronounced dead at 10:17 that morning. She had a 3-year-old son.
The Fire department, which runs the city's Emergency Medical Service, says it's going to investigate the incident. Also, the two EMTs who chose to do nothing have been put on paid but restricted duty and are not allowed to provide patient care.
What makes the case of Eutisha Rennix so sad is that the Fire department was right near the location of her death. Even sadder is the fact that the EMT dispatch center is in the same building. We can all agree that this never should have happened.
There are questions that need to be answered in order to get to the bottom of this. A young woman is dead, and according to family members, her 3-year old son has been asking for his mommy since she passed. Was this a bad judgment on the part of two individuals or some kind of company policy? While the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has publicly reprimanded the actions of these two workers, I'd like to know for sure if they were not reacting to some kind of city policy that doesn't insure them in the event that they help someone when they are not on the job. If they'd tried to help Rennix and then she died, would they somehow be personally liable if anything went wrong? Are there any rules on the books stating that they shouldn't help anyone when they are on break, instead referring them to 911 emergency services?
If it is indeed the case that the EMTs were simply being neglectful, this leaves a horrible stain on the New York Fire Department, as well as other EMTs in the city. Eutisha is never coming back, all because they EMTs wanted to hurry up and eat their bagels. Based on what I've seen so far, I am personally disgusted.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is the founder of the Your Black World Coalition. To have Dr. Boyce commentary delivered to your email, please click here. 

Comments: (121)
Add a comment
By: Fhamm1 on 12/22/2009 10:44PM
Da Truf, Is a wasted nut, His st bernard father should'ev shot that load in his water dish...what do you think? You can tell his mother was a german sheperd, only wild animals speak ill of real humans, Who can deny that.
Report This
By: Ashley Caldeira on 12/22/2009 11:41AM
Putting them in jail, is probably that I am judging the Two EMT's Personnel.
Since everybody, is so educated and smart,
talking about what the lawbook says.
End of the day, the woman was a human being.
if the two EMT's personnel could not feel love for another brother or sister, it is totally useless stating what the law says.
The Law will only show us the way. The End Decision is Ours.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Michael Ellison on 12/22/2009 11:59AM
The people of NYC mostly should not stand by and let them (2) EMT Professionals dishonor there city,because of what happen on 9/11. We the people of THE UNITED STATES do not need enemies on our own soil.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Beloved on 12/22/2009 1:14PM
Interesting gomob1981! I thought that healthcare providers were protected by their company's or hospital's liability during all hours they are on shift,including break times? So, you saying that this is not true? Even so, I would think that the only way these EMT's fear of possible liability could have merit is if the EMTs were required to clock out for their breaks. Either way, it is tragic that this young woman died. EMTs, like Physicians, RNs and other care givers vow to do no harm. Sitting back and allowing someone to die, when you are trained to try and save lives, is the ultimate harm IMHO. And, while I can understand a degree of reluctance to offer help to people in a society where the people you are trying to help, can and will sue you for your efforts, it is still unconscionable to me that any care providers would let fear of liability and wanting a break, keep them from trying to save a life.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: G. E. N. on 12/22/2009 2:43PM
whether on the clock or not-an EMT IS AN EMT 24/7/365
Report This
By: Special on 12/22/2009 12:52PM
It is a civic duty to aid or help anyone in distress, especially if one holds a civic job.
It is a human duty to help in any kind way to provide comfort to someone in distress or provide
emergency medical to someone. I'm not sure if these characters has proved to be what they were trained to be. You have to have a passion to hold a civic position of any kind. To use the excuse of being on a BREAK lacks compassion for life and should be treated as such. My heart goes out to the extended family and to her child. For the EMT workers involved I pray strongly for them. We learn by our mistakes, but this seems to be out of the ordinary for anyone to continue with a break when sooo much commotion is going on. It's totally inhuman. May the spirit of CHRISTMAS and all that it holds be with each and every one, because JESUS still loves us all no matter what flaws we hold. His love for each and every one of us is UNCONDITIONAL and the outcome of this situation is between those individuals involved, JESUS and the law of the land.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: ricky on 12/22/2009 12:02PM
well it's sad. it is what it is. unfortantely there are health professionals that are in it for the money vs helping others in need. but the law is the law, if you are reconnized as a medical professional you are required to rendar care regardless otherwise face law suites. abandenment does not play apart in this case. those emt's made a bad judgement call will face there consequences for it. "losing there license im sure" and im sure the family will file a lawsuit. which they should. its just common sense.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: OneTNTMom on 12/22/2009 12:16PM
There are four basic elements of negligence:
(1) duty
(2) breach
(3) cause
(4) damages
The two EMT workers have a duty to protect the general public. They breached that duty (and trust) of the general public by not helping the pregnant lady. The cause and damage here are evident - death - the lady is dead and her son is left without a mother.
Say it with me people, LAWSUIT, LAWSUIT, and LAWSUIT.
This is sad. That would be like the police saying that because they are on "break" that if they see a crime being committed that they would not intervene.
This is ludicrous.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: jean on 12/22/2009 12:12PM
They, just as police officers, doctors ect. took a oath to either serve and protect or to save lives; break or no break, someones life was in jeopardy, they as well as the people should have called 911, for which the people did and they the people should be applauded because they knew what the true meaning of 911 means and meant. 911 is becoming just a number in this day and time, and it needs to be improved. As for those EMT's, they need to have their licenses revoked in all 50 states, given time in jail and pay restotution to that 3-yr. old little boy who no longer has a mother.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Aaron The EMT on 12/22/2009 12:14PM
These two are a digusting blemish to my profession. Part of the EMT national curricullum is learning the fact that all 50 states have "Good Samaritan" laws that protect any and everybody that render aid w/ out looking for money in return. No city/state/department has a "no reponse while on break policy".
I'm an EMT and currently in school to be a paramedic...I don't know if NY has a "duty to act" law and whether or not they had "personal protective equipment" should be taken into account, but both of their licences should be evoked for a gross breach of ethics. I'd personally like to spit on these two.
Reply to this Comment | Report This