This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • NCHighlander Nov 9, 8:11 a.m.

    "I take exception to headlines that fire killed the patient or that it was a fatal fire. If the staff were performing a defibrillation (versus a cardio version) then the patient by definition was already vital signs absent. This death is more aptly termed a failed resuscitation interrupted by a fire. jackcdneh1017"

    I am sure your insightful analysis will greatly comfort the patent's friends and family. piene2

    Actually piene2 the comment is very important. The family that your talking about will obviously sue the hospital and the actual cause of death will be key in that suit. Perhaps that is as big of a story as the original. Care to make an anti gun comment on this story?

  • SmokeWagon Nov 8, 5:07 p.m.

    The word "accident" implies no willful intent....however EVERY "accident" is caused...yes, every single one...an "accident" does NOT mean there was NO negligence....!!!!

  • ladyblue Nov 8, 4:08 p.m.

    the MythBusters TV show on DSC tested the 'fire' possibility. it *is* possible, but only if every-single-thing goes wrong.

    LOL--as well as the mythbusters try to copy every action--there is always a envirornmental difference...and anything is possible at any given time....

  • Bronco Nov 8, 4:07 p.m.

    An accident does not rule out negligence

  • turkeydance Nov 8, 3:38 p.m.

    the MythBusters TV show on DSC tested the 'fire' possibility.
    it *is* possible, but only if every-single-thing goes wrong.

  • jackcdneh1017 Nov 8, 3:20 p.m.

    I take exception to headlines that fire killed the patient or that it was a fatal fire. If the staff were performing a defibrillation (versus a cardio version) then the patient by definition was already vital signs absent. This death is more aptly termed a failed resuscitation interrupted by a fire.

Oldest First