aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/29/86)
Damn the torpedoes! This becomes a moral question as well as a legal one. If you come upon someone injured, know (or think you know) what the appropriate first aid is, but are not trained in it: seek trained help. If there is no trained help, and it does not appear that the subject will survive long enough to get to trained help, I would help to the best of my knowledge nontheless. Damn the legal consequences - all they can take is my money. The Canadian Royal Life Saving Society posed this problem for us in terms of spinal injuries: what do you do if you come on someone floating face-down in the water with an apparently broken back? turning them over, or even attempting to apply AR from underneath, might cut their spinal cord. I always think of such a situation happening if I am on a cycle trip with a friend in Northern Ontario, swimming and diving in a lake.
matt@rocky2.UUCP (Matt Blaze) (01/30/86)
Just to add one additional comment: as I have always understood it, ARC certificicates really have no legal status at all (except when they are required by a specific state or local statute, such as a lifeguard who is required to have an ALS certificate. Few, if any, states require a certificate for a private citizen who comes to the aid of an accident victim as far as I know). In particular, a CPR certificate is not a "license" to perform CPR, nor is one required. The important issue is not whether the rescuer has a valid certificate, or even ever took a course, but rather that he acted within the limits of what one would expect a reasonable lay person to do. Even without specific laws to protect rescuers against lawsuits, it would be very hard to win a suit against someone who does CPR on someone who actually *needed* it. After all, a key element of a civil suit is damages. Anyone who needs CPR is clinically dead, so even with the worst rescue efforts imaginable one would be hard pressed to show that someone was damaged by the attempt. Of course, things become much less clear when someone does CPR on a person who is breathing, or a rescuer who abandons his/her efforts without being releaved by another rescuer. Similarly, in cases of severe bleeding, unless the rescuer's efforts to control the bleeding actually *increase* the bleeding (such as by submerging the wound in water), the attempt itself causes no damage, hence there is no basis for a lawsuit. None of this, of course, would apply in cases where the rescuer caused the victim's injury in the first place! @begin<Disclaimer> I am not a lawyer, nor do I even want to be. This is only my unprofessional understanding of what the law is, based on my experience as an ARC CPR instructor-trainer. @begin<sub-disclaimer> Nothing above should be taken as representing the opinion of the American Red Cross, or anyone else for that matter. @end<sub-disclaimer> @end<Disclaimer> -Matt Blaze based o
wcs@ho95e.UUCP (x0705) (02/05/86)
In article <152@rocky2.UUCP> matt@rocky2.UUCP (Matt Blaze) writes: >Just to add one additional comment: as I have always understood it, >ARC certificicates really have no legal status at all (except when However, it does protect the Red Cross a bit - If ARC didn't have a certification process, and you botch a CPR job, the victim(or at least his lawyer) can try to sue the ARC for not teaching you right, &c. If you have an expired certification, they can get out more easily. It also has the benefit of reminding you when you need retraining. My certification expired a month or two ago, and I *know* I've forgotten a lot of the timing details, and that I ought to go back if there's ever a convenient time. > [if] the attempt itself causes no damage, hence there is no >basis for a lawsuit. Who needs a basis? This is New Jersey. -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (02/06/86)
> > > > Damn the torpedoes! > This becomes a moral question as well as a legal one. > If you come upon someone injured, know (or think you know) what the > appropriate first aid is, but are not trained in it: > seek trained help. If there is no trained help, and it does not > appear that the subject will survive long enough to get to trained > help, I would help to the best of my knowledge nontheless. > Damn the legal consequences - all they can take is my money. The U.S. Congress had considered this dilemma a number of years ago, and passed what has been known as the "Good Samaritan Act." I don't know all the details, but it is a law which limits the liabilities of persons, including doctors, who stop to render emergency aid in life-threatening situations. The law was needed because many doctors were refusing to render emergency aid in such situations, fearing malpractice suits. __ / \ \__/ Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish -- __ / \ \__/ Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (02/06/86)
> > Damn the torpedoes! > > This becomes a moral question as well as a legal one. > > If you come upon someone injured, know (or think you know) what the > > appropriate first aid is, but are not trained in it: > > seek trained help. If there is no trained help, and it does not > > appear that the subject will survive long enough to get to trained > > help, I would help to the best of my knowledge nontheless. > > Damn the legal consequences - all they can take is my money. > > The U.S. Congress had considered this dilemma a number of years ago, and > passed what has been known as the "Good Samaritan Act." I don't know > all the details, but it is a law which limits the liabilities of persons, > including doctors, who stop to render emergency aid in life-threatening > situations. The law was needed because many doctors were refusing to > render emergency aid in such situations, fearing malpractice suits. > / \ > \__/ Bob Fishell > ihnp4!ihu1g!fish I don't see what this problem has to do with the U.S. Congress. This type of liability is usually covered under state laws (unless the "good samaritan" is in the armed forces). Bob Fishell, are you sure of your facts? What is the USCA citation? Mark Reina
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/09/86)
> > The U.S. Congress had considered this dilemma a number of years ago, and > passed what has been known as the "Good Samaritan Act." I don't know > all the details, but it is a law which limits the liabilities of persons, > including doctors, who stop to render emergency aid in life-threatening > situations. The law was needed because many doctors were refusing to > render emergency aid in such situations, fearing malpractice suits. The U.S. Congress did no such thing. Good Samaritan laws have been passed in nearly every state of the Union, but it has been done by the state legislatures each time. Nancy Caroline, MD in her book "Emergency Care in the Streets" states: Most states, have a Good Samaritan Act to protect physicians, and sometimes others, from legal action resulting from their participation in emergency treatment. The Florida Good Samaritan legislation of 1065 is fairly representative of such acts: Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency medical care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctors office or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary resonable prudent man would have acted under the same circumstances. -Ron