Ellis contribution questioned.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

I certainly agree that Jeff Ellis is a lightning rod for controversy. In my view, though, your article (February 2004 issue) overlooked some key reasons. Here are a few from my perspective:

"Industry experts" are quoted as stating that Mr. Ellis has "significantly reduced the number of accidents" in the waterpark industry. Maybe. Who really knows? The waterpark industry is highly secretive about its injury data and trusting its own reports seems naive. I have similar views of Mr. Ellis' self-reporting.

One person quoted favorably opined that Mr. Ellis "kicked it up a significant notch in the water safety world." My recollection is that Mr. Ellis pioneered the shrinking of lifeguard training courses, presumably to the economic benefit of his clients. This apparently forced other lifeguard training organizations to take similar actions to compete with his approach.

The use of rescue tubes (designed by and for ocean lifeguards) in the pool environment did, indeed, result in "opening the door for many more lifeguards." It also allowed a diminution of lifeguard swim standards, which is why the door opened. That broadened the labor pool and likely placed downward pressure on lifeguard salaries, saving more money for clients at the expense of lifeguards. Does water safety benefit by lowering minimum lifeguard swimming skill levels?

Mr. Ellis defends his decision to direct his lifeguards to use the Heimlich maneuver as a first step in drowning resuscitation, despite lack of endorsement by the majority of medical experts and particularly those who set resuscitation standards. According to ...