As a former firefighter/EMT, I can honestly say that the only time it is acceptable to refrain from assisting someone, is if you are placing yourself in a dangerous situation. You are rendered unable to help others, if you become a victim as well. When responding to a hostile situation, we were instructed to wait until law enforcement cleared the victims before administering aid.
I think that anyone with the knowledge to help someone should do so, even when not required. If we think about this in a broader spectrum, consider how many people stop to aid at an accident scene, even though they are not trained or employed to do so? How many people selflessly rescue others, because they feel compelled to help? We don't always hear about the good deeds of those who do so, but we all know they are out there. There are good samaritan laws that protect those who aid, but the real question is what standard are those with the education and knowledge held to?
While we have to respect the choices of those who decide to "walk by", we have to ask ourselves why we are becoming such a removed and cold society. Many years ago, communities were built on the good nature of all. Now, we just assume it's not our job to help. I suppose they should ask themselves if the woman had perished, would they feel any remorse? I would. I would lose many a nights sleep knowing there may have been something I could have done.
It's less a matter of legal responsibility and more a matter whether or not we feel a duty to aid our fellow men and women.

The article doesn't say whether or not they were on duty, but I would hope EMT's would help out either way. I do understand, however, that in our incredibly litigious society, it can be dangerous for someone to help on their own, without the legal protections of their employer.

Were it me, however, I think I would feel an obligation to use my abilities to help anyone who was in obvious distress. Unless my helping them would cause my own death or serious injury, or I would be unable to help someone who stood a better chance of survival or needed aid more, I would feel it was my responsibility to step in.

It sounds like the EMT's weren't the only ones to screw up though. Since we can't rule out of the possibility that they didn't see her, and because it sounds like the people who did see her didn't express necessarily alarm, this may just be a tragic mishap.

It very much depends on the situtation, but I can see another side to the EMT's.

Hmm my thoughts are this.... The female emt reportedly called 911 so she assumed they were on the way with the proper equipment to help. The EMT's in question had no rescue equipment to aid the young girl, but they could have stayed to maybe do crowd control to keep folks away or maybe reposition the woman so she could breathe easier. I would NEVER do mouth to mouth on anyone I did not know personally. Since the EMT's might have been dating I would assume they were just stopping in to grab a bagel like the others in the shop.

If the electric was flicking or what ever we would not expect a customer who is an electrician to fix the lights, or a doctor to bandage a cut. They might help but we would not hold them responsible but yet the media and legal system might hold these two EMT's responsible.

I'm not an EMT, though I did take a CPR/first aid class earlier this year. According to my instructor, a rescuer's first step should be making sure the scene is safe to approach--you can't help anyone if you become a victim yourself. In the face of an obvious threat (fire, fast moving water, downed power lines, etc.) it *might* be more appropriate to get help to deal with the hazard before attempting to care for the victim.

With that said, I can't imagine a hazard in a coffee shop that would override an EMT's duty to respond. I wonder if there's more to the story than has been reported in the news.