The recent thread concerning the responsibilities of off-duty officers has led me to consider something that I have not thought about for several years.
When I was growing up, my cousin was an EMT. He was reminded never to leave the EMT license plate up in the rear window of his car when he was off duty. His superiors said that if he drove by an accident with that plate in the window and failed to stop, he would be in serious legal trouble. He explained that this was the reason that some EMTs elect not to permanently mount the plate on their cars.
First of all, I would like to know if anyone could confirm that this anecdote is indeed factual. (We lived in New Jersey if that helps at all.) More importantly though, are doctors (M.D.) allowed to drive by the scene of an accident without offering their assistance? If they are allowed to drive by, why do EMTs have to stop?
There is a whole group of laws that have been enacted in most states to cover the liability for everyone, including emergency workers. They are collectively known as Good Samaritan laws.
You can read more here. Most get some degree of protection off the job compared to on the job.
Emergency medical technician, the guys who drive and staff the ambulance. The have special paltse (and often lgihts) on their personal cars because they are often volunteers, and it can help identify you if you need to go to a scene of an accident or emergency.
EMT stands for “Emergency Medical Technician”. They provide first-aid in ambulances along with paramedics (a similar job). I suspect they have special emblems just so they can park at accident scenes and other places where they are needed just like firefighters.
Thanks for the link Shagnasty. It was very helpful and also let me see how complicated this issue really is. There are a lot of different rules that vary by state and it explains why I was allowed to perform certain acts of first aid as a trained day camp counselor (in NJ) while other people, with the same title as me, who lacked first aid training could not.
It seems as if most of these really complicated scenarios were accounted for due to lawsuits. Its too bad all of these Good Samaritan laws are necessary for the protection of otherwise helpful people.
Sorry about the EMT thing. :smack: I made an assumption and you know what happens when you assume.
And unfortunately it doesn’t seem to answer the question that inspired the link in the first place – at least not that I can tell.
So, to restate (and voice my incredulity): is it seriously possible that if I were a medical practitioner (and was identifiable as such) and chose not to stop and volunteer aid I could be somehow liable? Say some idiot rolls his SUV through the guardrail and into a snowdrift. Do I have to say “Sorry, Timmy, but I have to stop and do this or I could get hauled into court. Maybe your team will make it into the state hockey finals next year.”?
Doctor speaking here. I believe the answer is thus: if the EMT has the sign in their window, the implication is that they are on duty (otherwise why have the sign in the window). An EMT on duty would be expected to respond to accidents in the field. If on duty and the EMT drives by, they would be considered negligent. However, EMT’s off duty have no legal obligation to stop at the scene of an accident. Doctors have no legal obligation to provide medical care unless there is a doctor-patient relationship, either explicit or implicit. The doctor-patient relationship requires that the patient explicitly requests said relationship (i.e. chooses to come to the doctor’s office) or that the patient implies their consent for said relationship (comes to the hospital where there is a physician on duty in the ER). A random accident scene outside of the hospital or physician place of practice provides neither of those conditions for a doctor-patient relationship, thus doctors are not legally required to stop. The vast majority of doctors and EMTs who witness an accident scene “off duty” are likely to assist if they can; not because we are legally bound, but because we believe it is the right thing to do (ethics and all that).
The good samaritan laws are intended to protect the well intentioned person from being sued for trying to assist even when there is no legally binding doctor-patient relationship, or legally recognized duty to assist.
As an aside, other than providing basic life support (Airway, Breathing, Circulation), physicians are quite impotent in the field. The EMT’s are the ones who have the equipment to make a difference (neck braces, back boards, IVs to combat hemorrhage, endotracheal tubes for ventilatory support and other medical equipment, etc.). When I stop at an accident scene, my role as the physician on the scene is to make sure that other non-trained well-intentioned people don’t do any additional harm (i.e. move a patient with a possible neck fracture), provide the ABC’s, and wait for the field professionals to arrive, then stand back. Once back in the hospital, where I have the rest of the tools necessary for me to employ my physician skills, then I can start to work.
This is a common rumor, however, in general it’s not true. While the ethics of not stopping to render aid are debatable, only Minnesota and Vermont require EMTs to stop at accidents. And this duty is imposed regardless of whether or not one has EMT/firefighter plates or an EMT sticker on their car.
Now, there are also some jurisdictions that require their employees to stop at accidents in their response area, but AFAIK this is not very common. In general, I won’t stop unless it looks like a major accident and no one is on scene yet. Living in a large metro area, I’m more of a risk to other people trying to get over an stop my vehicle than I am a benefit to the people involved. Besides, all my toys are in the ambulance, if I’m in my POV I can’t really do whole lot.