quote:Diving onto subway tracks, a Harlem father saved the life of a stranger yesterday when he pinned the flailing man between the rails just seconds before a 370-ton train roared over their entwined bodies.
He was there with his 4 and 6 year old daughters the other guy started going into seizures on the platform, and then off the platform. He tried to get him out first, but when he saw the train coming he pushed him down and lay on top of him. There's a picture on the site, and you can see a grease smudge on his hat where the bottom of the train grazed his head. The train operator saw them, and made an emergency stop with them under the train.
quote:Autrey, who was trapped under the train for 20 minutes before workers turned off the power, said he could hear his daughters screaming.
"My daddy!" they hollered. "My daddy!"
Witnesses said Autrey began shouting at straphangers to be quiet so he could pass a message to his kids. The platform grew silent.
"Let my daughters know that I'm okay and that the man is okay!" he shouted, as onlookers broke into applause.
I can imagine trying to help the guy, but I can't imagine having the presence of mind to get him down and pin him when you saw the train coming. I'm just floored by this story. That is one lucky young man.
posted
Thanks so much for posting this. I've passed it along to a bunch of others. Always so wonderful to know that altruism is still alive and well.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
And yeah, while I'd like think I'd have jumped down to try to get the guy out (not something you can really know until it happens), I don't think I would have had the presence of mind to push him down under the train. Sad to say, I probably would have bailed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely wouldn't have jumped on top of him like that. I'm almost positive I'd do anything I could to save someone else that didn't seriously endanger my own life. But, from the trains I've seen in real life, I just don't think I'd have thought that that particular course of action was a viable option.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shiver* What a brave thing to do, especially since I'm deathly, totally absolutely afraid of the NYC subway system.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not at all surprised that the guy is a veteran. They learn to think fast.
Every now and then, I read something like this, and wonder whether the world doesn't really totally suck.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: *shiver* What a brave thing to do, especially since I'm deathly, totally absolutely afraid of the NYC subway system.
<nod> One of the main characters in the first short story I wrote got mulched by a subway train in Manhattan. You write your fears.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mulched? This is one reason why I'm never riding the NYC subway again, even though I'm going there next month and in March. Because I've always been afraid of the subway, but last year, that fear flaired up. Funny how I'm not scared of the Boston system...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
First, I am in total awe. If I play this out and put myself in Autrey's place, I cannot honestly say there is the remotest chance I would have performed as quickly and - more importantly - heroically than he did.
So I am a little nervous about highlighting this piece of the article, which was omitted from an AP version I read on AOL:
quote: Autrey said he put a pen in the man's mouth to keep him from swallowing his tongue as two women also ran to his aid.
The idea you should put a hard object in the mouth of someone when they are having a seizure is an extemely stubborn myth and one that epilepsy organizations have been trying to dispel for at least 25 years (that was the first time I had an inservice on epilepsy for work-related reasons).
quote:November 30, 2004 — Half of all Americans (49%) wrongly believe that an appropriate first aid response to someone having a convulsive seizure is to put a spoon or something else in the person’s mouth to prevent him or her from swallowing or biting the tongue. That’s just one of several health myths that persist in the United States, according to a new survey released today by the Epilepsy Foundation.
“You should never put anything in the mouth of someone having a seizure,” said Eric Hargis, president and CEO of the Epilepsy Foundation. “You could cause injury to the teeth or gums. It’s also not true that a person can swallow his or her tongue during a seizure.”
This is not a criticism of Autrey - his actions undoubtedly saved Cameron Hallopeter's life. Any injury to his mouth from a pen is trivial in comparison.
But I am concerned about the power the story will have on reinforcing a myth that this is the right and helpful thing to do when someone is having a seizure.
I would hate to be the public education/public relations person for an epilepsy organization trying to figure out how to say something about this...
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought the hard object thing was to keep them from biting their tongue off. I knew the swallowing the tongue thing was a myth, but isn't biting it off a serious risk?
edit: I mean, I guess not according to the people who know a lot better than me^^, but I'm wondering why isn't it a risk, I guess.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
My understanding is that while people do bite their tongues, instances of tongues being bitten off are rare or unheard of.
OTOH, there are a large number of people who have had significant injuries from having hard sharp objects stuck in their mouths while having a seizure.
Hopefully, one of the epilepsy organizations will figure out how to use this as a "teachable moment" and give more detailed information.
I do know that from a quick google search using "epilepsy swallow tongue" it is an obvious concern in epilepsy organizations all over the world.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: But, from the trains I've seen in real life, I just don't think I'd have thought that that particular course of action was a viable option.
Me either, but we don't live in New York and take the subway every day. I guess I don't think it's unlikely that someone who uses the system regularly and is observant could know that that's a possibility.
Still incredibly quick thinking.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I've actually rehearsed things like that in my mind. That is, what I would do in certain situations if someone got into trouble and needed help. It's helped on a few minor occasions. I'm not sure if I picked that up naturally or if it were part of my Boy Scout/camp counselor or life guard training.
I wouldn't be suprised, especially in light of his military training, if Mr. Autrey has thought about this happening and worked out a plan for what he would do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would hate to be the public education/public relations person for an epilepsy organization trying to figure out how to say something about this...
Seems to me that they should enlist this guy to get the message out. If approached correctly, there's no reason he should feel attacked. As a military man, he's used to taking direction from experts and critiquing his own performance in life-threatening situations. And he's got the microphone, at least for a little while.
quote:You know, I've actually rehearsed things like that in my mind.
Me, too. And I didn't get past Webelos. I wouldn't have thought two people would fit in that space - at least not if one of them is me - but I have consciously thought "I should lay down flat in that depression if I'm stuck there with an oncoming train."
I think I read it in one of the worst-case scenario books.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to take anything away from Mr. Autrey's quick thinking or possible advance planning, but I'm also not ruling out the possibility of inspiration guiding him in a moment where quick action was needed.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, exactly the same thoughts went through my head. Glad you commented.
---
Edited to add: I forgot to mention that, jimminy cricket, I bet the gentleman didn't know if he could pin the guy down and have both of them fit under the train. I imagine it was a calculated risk (note the grease stain on the cap -- and for all he knew, this train could have had an extra bolt or two on the bottom), but by no means certain.
What an amazing story. Yep, true hero.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw Mr. Autrey on Letterman tonight. He said he works construction, which has helped him develop an eye for what fits where--and as the train got closer, he was able to eyeball it and figured there was enough clearance for the two of them under the train in that well.
He was great. At the very end of his appearance, he said that if he had it to do over again, he would make the same choice, and that he thought it was something all New Yorkers should do. He said of all the people on the platform, only three of them went to the man's aid when he first started having his seizure. He mentioned that with all the people in the military sacrificing to fight for our freedoms, how can we walk by someone sick or in trouble and say, "Sorry, I'm late for work"?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
What a great story. That guy certainly is brave, and he deserves all the praise he gets.
He also did the wrong thing.
(Assuming he didn't know he could survive that way.)
He has two kids and possibly a wife for whom he is responsible, much more so than he is for a stranger. It's one thing to risk your life when you think it likely you will survive. Jumping onto subway tracks when there is an approaching train, even if only to remove the seizure victim, doesn't count in my book. The most likely good scenario I can think of is you save the other guy and die yourself. One other person's life isn't worth more than your own, especially to your dependents.
You may now commence telling me what an ass I am.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I still think what he did was incredible, though. The two thoughts are perfectly happy existing in the same space in my head. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that was my initial reaction when I read that he was there with his two kids, too. He said he didn't want his kids to see this guy killed, how much worse to see him and their dad killed, and then be without his love and support for the rest of their lives, if he hadn't been able to save the guy?
In other words, he did the right thing, but only because it worked. If it hadn't, we'd be talking about what a tragedy it was.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few people have mentioned that they have rehearsed these scenarios in their heads and I use to do that. Now that I'm married and have a kid, that factors into my thoughts a great deal.
He did say that he was good at estimating things, so he might have "known" that he could do it. That's a lot different that hoping you might save someone's life and live through it yourself.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say "one other person's life isn't worth more than your own," so if he had no dependents, it would still have been the wrong thing?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jumping onto subway tracks when there is an approaching train, even if only to remove the seizure victim, doesn't count in my book.
Was there an oncoming train when he jumped? I don't think so, from my read of the article. In that case, there was good reason to think he might be able to get the guy up onto the platform.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky, another life isn't worth more or less than your own. So if he had had no dependents, I don't think he would have been wrong either way.
It sounds like you're trying to gauge if I'm saying that the lives of single people are worth less than the lives of people with families. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that if you have dependents, you have a specific commitment to them that ethically outweighs, in your choices, your commitments to other people. (imo)
-o-
Dagonee, point taken. I replied based on the facts presented here. Based on the article, you are right. (Then there's also the issue of the third rail that could have easily killed him, but maybe he didn't know about it, or maybe he did and he knew enough to know how to navigate it safely.)
-o-
Regardless, I specifically disagree with the sentiments Autrey expressed on Letterman, as paraphrased by Uprooted:
quote:At the very end of his appearance, he said that if he had it to do over again, he would make the same choice, and that he thought it was something all New Yorkers should do. He said of all the people on the platform, only three of them went to the man's aid when he first started having his seizure. He mentioned that with all the people in the military sacrificing to fight for our freedoms, how can we walk by someone sick or in trouble and say, "Sorry, I'm late for work"?
EDIT TO ADD: Then again, I guess it's the right thing to say, regardless. Can you imagine a hero saying, "You know what, now that I think about it, I really shouldn't have done that"?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he was kind of going with two different thoughts there. I don't think he was necessarily condemning anyone else for not jumping onto the tracks to save the guy--and I suspect from hearing him that if he thought he wouldn't have fit under the train, that he may have bailed. But he was visibly upset that when the man initially had the seizure, that he and two other women went to his aid and no one else did anything.
I certainly think you have a point, Icarus. Adding to it, he said that afterwards he was told that his older daughter, a real daddy's girl, was trying to follow him down there and had to be forcibly restrained.
But I'm much too thoroughly biased by the outcome--there's no way I can look at this and think he did anything but the right thing. If he were my husband, would I be proud or furious? Probably both. A lot of both. Like, there would probably be therapy involved.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The NYT has an article today speculating on why Mr. Autrey did what he did. I got into it without registration, but you may need to use Bug Me Not.
quote:Propensities to help others are not necessarily based on rational calculations; in fact, they often cannot be, because rational calculations would have been too slow in this particular case,” David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, wrote in an e-mail message. “Instead, they become impulses that are followed spontaneously, either by virtue of genetic disposition or childhood/cultural training.” Still, Dr. Wilson said Mr. Autrey exhibited an extraordinarily high degree of “other-oriented” behavior. “He’s a rarity,” Dr. Wilson said.
That Mr. Autrey served in the Navy most likely played a role, too — he had been trained to act quickly in adverse situations. Acts like jumping in front of trains to rescue strangers are easier for people who are prepared, said Michael McCullough, a psychology professor at the University of Miami.
One of the curious aspects about Mr. Autrey’s deed is that he jumped even though his daughters, ages 4 and 6, were at his side. Normally, experts say, the power of the parent-child dynamic would overwhelm any tendency to put yourself in harm’s way to rescue a stranger. Then again, suggested Dr. Fricchione, people who already feel attachment, like the kind toward their children, may be predisposed to act more altruistically to others. Mr. Autrey was also one of three people who helped Mr. Hollopeter when he first collapsed, convulsing, before tripping into the tracks. An empathetic connection was most likely forged then, too.
posted
I was reading a fascinating article about embarassment in the current issue of American Scientist over the weekend. There's a section in it that talks about the role that fear of embarassment plays in causing people to refrain from helping others in emergency situations. I immediately thought of this article.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a salesman I get a "pep talk" e-mail every day. Mr. Autrey was the subject of today's e-mail. What is the reward for being a hero?
quote:Wesley Autrey was awarded New York's Bronze Medallion - the city's highest honor for bravery and civic achievement - after he jumped onto subway tracks to save a man’s life. What good is coming his way now? Donald Trump presented Autrey with $10,000, The Walt Disney Co. gave him a one-week fully paid trip to Disney World, and the New York Film Academy has set up a scholarship fund for his two young daughters.
posted
"I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that if you have dependents, you have a specific commitment to them that ethically outweighs, in your choices, your commitments to other people. (imo)"
What about people in the military? Don't they make choices to put themselves in mortal danger when they have people who depend on them? What is the difference?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People believe they have committments that overide their committments to family. It's fairly common, and a big reason I stopped dating Evangelical Christians. I would also not want to be maried to a man in the military, or, say, an astronaut. Probably not a fireman or pliceman either.
I don't think I could deal with a spuse whose job would be likely to put them in grave danger, because that duty might supercede his committment to me and our children. And, you know, it's all about me. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth, I'm distinguishing between jobs that are dangerous or risky, and actions that are almost certain death. Telling the terrorists to take you and leave the others. Diving in front of a car to push someone out of the way. These are things I don't think you should do if you have dependents. I don't think it's quite the same as being a soldier, because most soldiers do come home.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: "I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that if you have dependents, you have a specific commitment to them that ethically outweighs, in your choices, your commitments to other people. (imo)"
What about people in the military? Don't they make choices to put themselves in mortal danger when they have people who depend on them? What is the difference?
A lot of people leave the service when they have kids, and I don't think any less of them because of it.
Also, don't forget....they are paid for it, and it is not just a lifestyle but a career. Most people don't go into the service for altruistic reasons.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
