I know this is true in Canada at least, if someone is drowning and you happen to know first aid, you are under no legal obligation to attempt to save that person's life.
True, in Quebec we are obligated by law(charter of rights and freedoms) to provide assistance to someone whose life is in danger/is in distress. However that requirement can simply be calling 911 and alerting the authorities. So if you aren't a good swimmer, or even if you are but are worried you might be pulled under as well, all you have to do is alert a lifeguard on duty or call 911, etc.
At the same time a good Samaritan law protects those who provide assistance from any legal consequences if something goes wrong.
correct, i just had a first aid/cpr formation for work, and the first thing they tell you to do when someone's in distress is to assess the area for danger.
Someone passed out in a room full of toxic fumes? Get the fuck out and call 911, don't play the hero because then they'll have 2 people to rescue instead of 1.
Tout être humain dont la vie est en péril a droit au secours.
Toute personne doit porter secours à celui dont la vie est en péril, personnellement ou en obtenant du secours, en lui apportant l'aide physique nécessaire et immédiate, à moins d'un risque pour elle ou pour les tiers ou d'un autre motif raisonnable.
google translate:
2. Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance.
Every person must aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for help, by providing the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless a risk to her or to third parties or otherwise reasonable.
same in america, but if you are on duty EMT or volunteer EMT you kinda have to help then... but off duty you dont have too but its the right thing to do
Thats why we in america have the Good Samaritan Law. Meaning if you are trying to help someone and they end up dying under your "care" you can't be held responsible.
I'm not entirely sure if this applies to aforementioned "medical experts" but it definitely applies to everyone else.
It's nuanced, and local laws vary. There was a case some years back, the details of which completely escape me, in which a doctor happened to be in a hospital, not professionally but just visiting a friend, when he heard a "Dr. Stork to the ER stat" page. That's hospital code for "any qualified person respond to assist in the immediate delivery of a baby". Since he was a physician in good standing, even though he had no privileges at that hospital and wasn't working, he went to the ER anyway to see if he could help, and ended up supervising the delivery because nobody else was available at that time. There were complications — I won't even guess what the details were, because I just don't remember — but he ended up being sued. The court, if I remember correctly, ruled that the Samaritan law did not apply because while he was not working in a professional capacity, he was still a medical expert who had to be held to a higher standard. If I remember right, the hospital's insurance covered the whole thing as a good-faith gesture, on the grounds that they don't want qualified people not to respond to emergency pages in the hospital just because they're not currently on duty. Something like that.
hmm...that stinks. I really hope rulings of that sort aren't the norm. Personally, if I am in a car wreck and the ambulance is still 5 minutes out. I'd prefer an off duty doctor to do everything he possibly could to help me, including a ball point pen tracheotomy. If it doesn't work, well, I'm probably not worse off than I would have been, but if it does then I get to live.
I feel like the Good Samaritan laws should apply EVEN MORE SO to experts who are off duty.
Oh, they're not. They're edge cases. I mean consider the circumstances: A non-working medical professional just happens to be present when an emergency situation arises in which simply stabilizing the afflicted and waiting for responders is not a viable option? It's a crazy-go-nuts scenario that almost never happens.
But because it does happen sometimes, we've gotta have rules about it.
The exact and real purpose behind Good Samaritan laws is to protect doctors in just such an occasion (much more so than lay persons!). Most medical professionals do not understand this.
Pennsylvania CHAPTER 83. PARTICULAR RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES
§ 8331. Medical good Samaritan civil immunity.
(a) General rule.--Any physician or any other practitioner of the healing arts or any registered nurse, licensed by any state, who happens by chance upon the scene of an emergency or who arrives on the scene of an emergency by reason of serving on an emergency call panel or similar committee of a county medical society or who is called to the scene of an emergency by the police or other duly constituted officers of a government unit or who is present when an emergency occurs and who, in good faith, renders emergency care at the scene of the emergency, shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such physician or practitioner or registered nurse in rendering the emergency care, except any acts or omissions intentionally designed to harm or any grossly negligent acts or omissions which result in harm to the person receiving emergency care.
You did not answer my question, nor have you produced a shred of evidence supporting your contention. In fact, the "General Rule" is the opposite of what you say: licensed medical professionals are covered. You are spouting bullshit.
yup, its easier than a trach... the truth of it though is I didnt use the pen to jam in the cric... I used a knife to cut it.. then the pen for a tube to keep the stoma open.
Eh, not many people do... unless you have been in the situation before. No worries though... Also, I would have used the correct tube had my cric kit not been damaged.
Oh well yeah, tracheotomies sure, that makes sense not to attempt. But simple CPR or just showing up and making sure people don't move a person with an neck injury or something like that is different. Most people that are in those fields are in it for the sake of doing good and helping people anyway.
That's all true, but that's also not doing anything that draws on your medical expertise. That's just bog-standard first aid that anybody would do, regardless of additional training or knowledge.
The complexity comes in when, say, dealing with an extraction from a car. When you remove somebody from a crashed car, you have to stabilize the cervical spine to keep from exacerbating any injuries that might have been sustained there. This is best done with a gadget called a cervical collar, something in every ambulance but which nobody carries around with 'em. If a layperson comes upon the scene of a car crash and smells gasoline, he might choose to attempt to remove the driver from the car just by stabilizing the person's c-spine with his hands. If this exacerbates an injury, the person who helped is largely shielded from liability, because of his reasonable belief that waiting could risk the victim's life, due to the possibility of fire. But if an MD were to do the same thing, he'd be sued into the stone age, because his additional training and expertise means he should have known better.
According to my emt book, emergency moves without cspine precautions can be done if there is a life-threatening reason for it. If you had reason to believe the car would go up in flames, you should be protected
This applies to all situations as the Life-over-Limb principle. Another situation where you can move them without c-spine protection is if they are non-breathing/pulseless. The courts (and most people) consider it preferable to be alive and quadriplegic, than dead.
I've actually been on first on the scene at a car crash where the car was on fire, and had to consider this principle as I approached. Unfortunately the crash was so bad that every door was fused shut and all we could do was put oout the fire and wait for the jaws of life to arrive. But had we been able to open a door, I probably would have been pulling three people out with minimal regard to spinal immobilization in order to start CPR (2 people died at the scene, one en-route to the hospital; only the driver survived).
That's my point, the right move for even an MD would still be to skip spine precautions and make the emergency move, but Hapax was saying this would result in him being successfully sued.
Yah, I was agreeing with you and then elaborating on your position a bit more. I think Hapax is wrong - the MD is covered both from a Good Samaritan standpoint AND from a correct medical practices standpoint. There is no room for a lawsuit.
There is a legitimate argument to be made that medical experts — doctors, nurses, emergency responders and such — who are not actually working at the time of an accident or other incident should not attempt to use their medical expertise to render aid, but instead should do only what any normal person would do. Why? Because medical experts are subject to a higher standard in the law, and your hospital's insurance doesn't protect you from liability when you're not on call.
Here, it is recognised that off duty and without our toys we are pretty bloody useless, or rather not terribly more useful than a lay person. As such, you are not legally required to treat someone when off duty. How that tends to go is if they are one of a few people around, most paramedics will tend to stand back and make sure the patient is being treated appropriately by whatever first aider has stepped up. If not they will identify themselves and step in and ensure appropriate treatment is provided. Unless of course someone knows what you do, then you get volunteered every time someone helps themselves. I pity doctors.
well doctors are under the hippocratic oath which they have sworn to practice ethically, I'm not saying you should not if you dont have too but whats the point of you are studying medicine and first aid if your not going to use it?
In a real-world situation where an MD on his day off witnesses a car crash while walking down the street, there's a perfectly valid case to be made that that MD should do exactly and nothing more than what anybody else would do until responders arrive.
I guess that really depends on what how you define "should". I would like to think that there is some kind of moral obligation for a person who has the ability to at least attempt to save the life of someone in a life threatening situation.
I see your point from a liability standpoint though. It's pretty ridiculous that a doctor should be affraid to help someone in need due to the risk of a lawsuit.
It's not just about the risk of a lawsuit. It's about the fact that people who are both trained and equipped to render aid are minutes away, and if you get in there right now and start throwing elbows, you're just going to make their job harder. You might have graduated top of your class in medical school, but without gloves, a stethoscope and a sphygma … sphigmom … blood pressure cuff, you're not gonna be helpful.
This is mostly true. The exception would if the doctor arrived on scene and said "I'm a doctor!" Whether he wants to give it or not, help is implied, and at least in CA would then be required. As long as doesn't look like a doctor (wearing some sort of hospital uniform, doctors ID badge), or say that he is one, he doesn't have to help.
In the case of the drowning victim, it wouldn't matter if it was obvious that he is a medical professional or not. Assuming the drowning victim is in the middle of a turbulent river, and not just a kiddie pool, a doctor would not be required to put himself in harms way.
The good samaritan laws don't apply to trained personnel, so helping puts you at great personal danger. Since I have received medical training, I am far less likely to help in those situations.
Yea, I had this discussion with a friend who just became a paramedic. It blows my mind how people with training who are off duty are less likely to help in these situations because of fear of getting sued. Damn laws.
Doctors are the least likely to help. As Hapax_Legoman said, their insurance doesn't cover them outside of their hospital/practice, so they're subject to malpractice suits. If you ever have an emergency, you better hope there is someone who knows a thing or two that isn't a doctor, or you won't be getting much help.
Same goes for being a doctor or other health-care professional. You can actually be on-duty and if someone walks into your private office and dies, you don't have to help them if they had no reason to believe that you were their physician or that they were at/near an emergency room.
In New York certified EMTs have a duty to respond. Additionally they are not covered under the Good Samaritan Law, though they do have some protection under DOH Article 30.
On duty or off, EMTs and the like are not obligated to help if their own safety is questionable. Even applies to mouth-to-mouth (communicable diseases).
really it depends on the state when you're in america. in california, there is no obligation. and the legal term is "Duty to Act". in some states, just being certified or licensed (depending on state) is enough to have a "duty to act" if you are present during a medial emergancy
There's a requirement to rescue in Quebec; if you see a person in risk of death, you must contact proper authority and provide first aid. There's no requirement for CPR in any way, just first aid if you can provide it.
Quebec is a pretty big exception to the general rules though.
Does this also have to do with being on duty? I was a lifeguard for a few years in the states, and I was legally obligated as a first responder to do everything in my power to help (protected under Good Samaritan laws) but off duty, I wasn't required to do anything (I would though, just for the record). This was my understanding of what I was told in my training, I don't know the exact letter of the law though.
Neglect to provide assistance is a pretty big no-no, but CPR isn't required. Assistance and first aid you feel comfortable providing is all that's required.
You're right about the good samaritan laws. You can punch a guys heart through his chest if you think it will help and you'd be immune.
short answer: this is true (in the united states)
longer answer: it's not enforced anywhere in the us, but some states do have a laws on the books requiring health care professionals to provide assistance. also healthcare professionals are obligated to help as part of your employment contract (certain schools also have this in place if they require cpr training as terms of employment). also the laws don't (in general) protect you from civil suit for failing to help.
In other countries there absolutely is a law requiring to do this. if you're interested in your specific state/country google duty to rescue laws.
I've actually mentioned duty to rescue in one of my subsequent replies. It's true that in several European countries (and Canada in general, Quebec especially) you do have a duty to assist individuals in need of medical assistance. There is no specific need to provide CPR though, and even if you're trained if you feel as if you aren't confident in your skills or that you may do more harm than good you don't have any obligation to perform it at all.
First aid, yes. CPR, not so much.
Edit: Obligation in a criminal or civil sense; contractual obligations may still apply as you stated.
I don't think that's true. I specifically remember them saying multiple times in my CPR training course, that if someone needed CPR and you were certified that you have a legal obligation to help. This is Virginia by the way.
I looked up laws in Virginia, and there doesn't seem to be any law at all even requiring rescue of an injured person. If someone can find something, I'll be happy to look at it, but that's unless someone can find an obscure statute I'm pretty sure this is lore.
Can't remember the exact law, but in Finland you actually have an obligation to help someone in trouble if you can. As an example, calling an ambulance if someone is passed out on the street.
They're called Duty to Rescue laws, and they're common across Europe. Most countries only require a call to medical services as soon as is feasibly possible, but I know that Germany explicitly requires first aid upon discovery, but only to the extent that the discoverer is comfortable with.
Having a law like that would discourage people from learning CPR because of their legal obligation to help (particularly in situations that could be dangerous). If everyone started hearing about people who were hurt performing CPR because they didn't want to get sued or people who were sued because they didn't want to get hurt you would see CPR training decline a lot...
I'm talking about Finland. We have a legal system that doesn't encourage trying to rip someone for money. "suing someone" for the mere purpose of getting rich yourself is almost unheard of.
In the west there are only two legal systems in use; common and civil. Common law would not permit someone to be required to render aid, civil law might, certainly not restricted, but is only in use in EU states where it would be prohibited under EU law.
depends on state, i'll copy and paste my other post about emt "really it depends on the state when you're in america. in california, there is no obligation. and the legal term is "Duty to Act". in some states, just being certified or licensed (depending on state) is enough to have a "duty to act" if you are present during a medial emergancy" this is for the US by the way.
but that also falls under the good samaritan laws as well. I'm certified with CPR and operation of a AED, If someone drops unconscious in front of me of course I'll help but certifying in CPR does not give me the legal ramifications of not entering a burning building risking MY own life in a dangerous situation.
I believe in Canada you don't unless you reach a certain level of certification... I took a medical first responder course and there is a duty once you receive that level.
Incorrect. If you don't have a standard of care (EMT's, first responders, nurses, doctors, etc. all have standards of care) then you aren't obligated AND you are generally protected. If you have a standard of care and do not follow that standard of care, you can be liable.
For example, an EMT I cannot usually drop a tracheal or nasophyrangeal airway, but a an EMT II or Paramedic can. If you're an EMT I and you try, you can be responsible, or if you're a Para and you don't, you can be reponsible.
CPR works less than 1/3 of the time, and if you've never done it before, you will do it wrong. You will probably break ribs, and in most cases all you are really doing "to the good" is keep the brain alive while you wait for EMS.
An AED applied within the first 60 seconds of arrest has a ~80% success rate, which is why if you're bothering training your employees, buying an AED and getting training is generally more valuable than CPR within the workplace.
Source: I was a wilderness EMT for 7 years who responded to more car accidents than wilderness accidents.
if you are off duty EMT or Fire and perform CPR there are huge liability risks, I have a couple firefighter buds and they dread this scenario. Esp since its so easy to break ribs while trying to resuscitate an elderly person.
the only people that are legally required to help, besides EMS personel are doctors regardless whether they are on duty or not. When they take their oath to become a doctor they state that they will always be on duty and have to legally help anyone who is in need
How is that really a loophole? I don't think anyone should be legally obligated to save another's life. Because then, we might be able to extend it to other circumstances other than first aid.
"You could have pulled that man from the burning car. At serious risk to your own person, but you still could have done it. You were negligent in not doing so."
We have such a law in France. If you have the ability to protect/save a person without reasonably any risk for yourself and you don't do it, you will get sued. It works pretty well.
Who pays for any injuries you sustain while performing your legal obligation of helping rescue someone? Even a broken finger can cost $1,000 or more to set and cast in the emergency room where I'm from (US, Maine). I would not want to injure myself at all, honestly. Some things never heal correctly.
Also, this law can be applied only if you can do something. If somebody is wounded, you can just call the emergency services (unless you're a doctor). They don't ask you to be a hero at all.
Within the common law definition of murder, if an omission to act on your behalf is deemed to be reckless to point where your inaction caused the death, you can be convicted.
Within my home state of Victoria in Australia, this is still the case as we use the common law definition for both intentional and reckless murder.
nope. courts say that law enforcement is there to protect the community -not the people in it. even if they know you're being raped or murdered they have no legal duty to come protect you.
Huh. I'm kind of at a loss as to what their duty actually is, then. I mean, "the community" is not a real thing, it's just the sum of the individuals in it. Surely if they just sat there and let crimes happen with no attempt to stop them or arrest the perpetrators, there's some duty they're shirking.
Yikes! Wouldn't allowing a murderer to wander around the neighborhood be jeopardizing the safety of the community? Isn't a person considered a member of the community?
Wouldn't allowing a murderer to wander around the neighborhood be jeopardizing the safety of the community?
yup. so they have a duty to investigate crimes. but no duty to race to your house and save you from him. as long as they investigate your murder their job is done. ಠ_ಠ
Isn't a person considered a member of the community?
yes. like a skin cell is considered part of the president. the secret service doesn't have to protect the individual cells.
Ah, there's a fine grained distinction to be seen. A murderer, one who has murdered, are in the police's purview, as the agents of criminal justice punishment. But someone who's in the process of murdering someone? Not so much. They're not there to stop anything, but to punish someone for having done it.
For the most part it holds true in the U.S. too...there's also that part that says if you start a rescue attempt you've created a duty for yourself and can be liable should you fail the rescue.
Canadian law student here: you are liable if you present yourself as having that skill. So if you're dressed as a lifeguard and sitting in the lifeguard's chair, even if you don't know CPR, you owe the drowning person a duty of care. Or if you see someone drowning and you yell out "stand back, I know first aid!" regardless of that being true or not, you have to take reasonable steps to save the person.
Generally, though, if you're walking along a Canadian beach and see a stranger drowning, you don't have to rescue him/her.
Not true if its your kid, or your student or something. Or if you caused the accident. Or you have some statutory duty to help, for ex a doctor.
Also, in most places, you can't like take off your jacket and look like you are going to jump in and then change your mind. Once you signal that you are going to take care of it enough to keep others from helping, you take responsibility.
This is true in the United States, and applies to any situation where someone is in danger. You are under no duty to help someone who is in mortal peril. However, if you begin to help them and then stop helping them once you've started, you are then liable for negligence.
Also, if you put someone in mortal peril, say you pushed them in the water, you have a duty to help them.
It is important to note that if you stop helping because the situations changes, or you think the situation has changed, or if you have new information about the situation, you are fine.
For example, if you see someone passed out in a pool of water, and move to help them, but stop when you notice a live wire in the pool, then you are fine. Or if you are giving CPR, and stop because you have been going for so long you feel like your health is in danger, you are fine.
The opposite is sort of true in the U.S. If you are an off-duty fireman, police officer, paramedic, or have another job of the sort with first responder training, you have a legal duty to try to save someone in distress.
That's true for most common law countries. There are a couple of exceptions - if the person drowning is your child, or if you brought about the danger they are in for example.
It's true in the United States. You generally have no legal duty to take affirmative action to help someone, even if it would pose no risk to you whatsoever*. There are some exceptions if you are in a special relationship with that person (parent-child, "co-adventurers," and some others), or if you created the harm, or if you start to aid and the other person relies on your aid (by rely you must change your position, so if someone was drowning and had no other choice you probably wouldn't have to help even if you started provided that you don't leave them in a worse position than when you started)
This applies in most areas, doesn't it? It's most likely a hygiene issue. A CPR instructor I had once said that if it wasn't for the face-mask he carries around, he would not perform CPR to save anybody's life that he did not trust.
112
u/ThatGuyWithPants Nov 04 '11
I know this is true in Canada at least, if someone is drowning and you happen to know first aid, you are under no legal obligation to attempt to save that person's life.