I wasn’t meaning to be defensive, just say that I wasn’t holding that up as evidence for any points … it was just meant as humor related to the topic.
Yeah, my classes were also in California (two in OC, two in LA, one in Ventura). I might have confused it with the law about continuing to give aid once you start, as I mentioned in my last post. My last instructor taught my last two classes (every 2 years) and I know he mentioned that fact.
So, perhaps the point of my messages here is that there is a time when the law requires you to help someone in need … once you have started to give them help. It’s a worthwhile point
Under Fueros Nuevos de Navarra (think of it as the Navarrese State Constitution valid from the 1300s until 1978), there were four items that a person had to give to another if requested, as they were considered vital for survival. The law also established how much. IIRC the four things were food, water, salt and fire. There is a separate but similar part of the law dealing with right of passage to work in your land (your neighbor had to let you use a path around their land, but not through it).
For the fire, the person asking for it had the right to take ash in his hands, then embers onto the ash. If the person giving it wanted to let them light a candle or use a bowl instead, they could - but they were not obliged to do so. There were similar limits for the other three.
Just a sample of how widely these laws can vary by location.
Way back when in Texas, I was dating a nurse. We drove past a traffic accident one night that the police were already at the scene of. She had me stop so she could ask if they needed her assistance. They didn’t, so we drove on. She told me that nurses were required to do that or they could lose their license. I assume this to be true; she turned out to have a whole host of mental problems, but that one rang true.
Not in Pennsylvania. I was present (circa 1989) when a nurse refused to do mouth-to-mouth on a guy because she did not have her mouth shield on her. There was a big uproar about the situation. No criminal charges, no loss of license, and although a civil suit was threatened, it was not pursued.
My example was from supposed Texas law. But I wonder if something like not having a mouth shield or other specific equipment could be used to excuse a nurse from performing a specific procedure while the overall rendering of aid was still required.
Laws don’t get passed for no reason, they’re always intended to address a perceived need, so it’s kind of sad that anywhere would have to pass a law to make people finally render aid.
(I’m not dumping on Quebec, it just happens to be in the post above this one. It’s sad that it has to happen anywhere.)
I was kind of suspecting that I had heard that it is law in some places.
I also recall about whether or not you should begin to give care … If the person is capable of refusing your care, you should ask their permission to give them care. If they refuse you, do not give them care (although you can continue to try to talk them in to it if you want). If they accept, give them care. If they are incapable of answering, you can give them care if you think their life depends on it.
So, if a person is choking, and you ask them if they are choking or if they require assistance, they can shake their head “no,” probably hoping that they will be able to hack it up themselves. They may shake their head “yes,” that they need help, so you should then provide it. Or, they may be unable to answer you (not enough air, can’t pay attention, can only point at throat), in which case you should use your judgement and provide care if it seems necessary.
in addition to ending aid if the person dies, another takes over or one’s life is in danger, you may also quit when you become too exhausted to continue. cpr is hard work done correctly. but this also means if you get their puke in your mouth & get grossed out, you still must continue.
Person is choking from apparant blockage (say, the genius whose last words were “Hey everybody - Watch THIS!” before trying to swallow a large fish). I try Heimlich (or my best guess) - I am not trained in the technique.
Fish is still there. I have a reasonably sharp pocket knife (gasp! Horror! “he’s armed!”*
Can I try my hand at Tracheostomy (also untrained)?
Do I get busted for manslaughter if he bleeds to death (dang cartoid, jumping under the knife lake that!) ?
Anyway, if I am now COMPELLED to assist, are there also limits towhat techniques I can try?
If this is a poll: count me a horrified that:
a. such legal compulsion would be deemed necessary
b. such a requirement applies to me - once you mandate “must”, you now get to say “what”.
believe it or not, there was a time when male grownups actually carried small, mulit-blade, folding knives as a matter of course. Shocking and amazing, huh?
Possibly. If you are not trained to perform an action and you do so, you’re not covered by good samaritan laws. You can be charged and also sued, depending on the outcome. You must be trained/certified to get protection.
Re-read the various laws. You are compelled to assist where you are able and qualitified. You don’t have free hand to do anything that pops into your head.
This is what I was taught the last time I went through First Aid training many years ago. The second part has always puzzled me. If someone conks out in front of you and you give him CPR for half an hour and then finally give up, why in the world would you be held liable for that?
RR
Your state may vary but licenced medical practicioners (RN, MD, PA types) are sometimes NOT covered by good samaritan laws. Good sam laws are intended to encourage bystanders to help in some way even if poorly or minimally trained. People with advanced medical training are often assumed to know exactly what to do and can sometimes be held liable for poor application. Specialties come into play as well as to when it might be reasonable for someone with advanced training to pass by. If you get stabbed or have half your car crushed around you you will probably prefer an EMT to a endocrinologist or doctors office RN whos last first aid class was 23 years ago.
IME most people from emergency specialties will stop and render aid just because that is the type of people drawn to those types of specialties, you don’t work ER or ambulance for the money or the fame.
In the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death, absent any other means of prosecuting the photogs chasing the car there was an attempt to prosecute them for not rendering aid (which sounds similar to the Quebec law upthread).
This sounds reasonable, which is interesting because it’s completely at odds with the news story that seems to have inspired Omega Glory to post this thread. In it, the boyfriend repeatedly tried to convince his girlfriend to come out of the bathroom, but she insisted on remaining in there.
So there’s a question of not just whether or not the person is capable of refusing care but also whether they’re competent enough to refuse care. Then there’s also all the potential problems if you judge wrong on the competency.
I’m an EMT, and I’m covered by the Good Samaritan Laws, as long as I act within the scope of my training. If I tried to trach someone, screwed up and they died, I could be sued. (JFTR, I’d lose my certification if I trached someone - I’m not trained on how to do it)
In my state, we are bound by what is called ‘Duty To Act,’ which means we’re supposed to stop and give aid when we can, but contrary to what SiamSam posted about his girlfriend the nurse, who’s going to know if you drive on past an accident? It’s not like they stop cars and check to see who’s qualified to help.
Read the statues. In the Maine link it states that you can only be prosecuted if you leave the person in a worse state then when you found them. For example, if you put someones leg in traction, then released it and severed an artery, you must stay and continue aid as you made their condition worse.
Doing CPU on a person who is unresponsive isn’t making their situation any worse. Protocol is to keep performing it until relieved by a medical professional or until you are exhausted and unable to continue or if it becomes unsafe. In the wilderness, where I generally operate, after 30 minutes you can also stop since the likelyhood of anything good happening after that is vanishingly small.
He was a UC Berkeley student who visited a Nevada casino with a friend. He walked into a womens’ room (I think he followed the friend into the room), where over the top of the stall partition, he saw his friend struggling with a seven-year-old girl. He claimed to have attempted to get his friend’s attention, and then walked out of the bathroom and did not do anything to stop the friend. (Later the friend admitted to him that he molested and murdered the child.) The Time magazine article to which I linked has a discussion of the legality of doing nothing when you witness a crime.
I can’t find any cites that back up that this is what “duty to act” means. The following was written by a lawyer on emsfirelaw.com (bolding mine):
I can’t find any reliable cites that claim you have a duty to act while you’re off duty simply because you are an EMT (although I’ve read that claim from others posting in forums). The information I’ve gathered so far leads me to believe you only have a duty to act on duty or when you choose to respond while off duty. I tried searching for cites applicable to MD (where I assume you work as an EMT) but I couldn’t find any.
