CPR is medical aid. There are very few things you can do at an accident scene that is both needed and non medical. Every First Aid/CPR class I’ve taken, they stress not to move an accident victim unless they are in immediate danger. This case was clearly some idiot who thinks car crash=massive explosion.
Well, I guess the big issue for me is whether or not it’s an emergency situation. It seems to me that the point is to encourage people to help out in emergencies. That is, in very quick, life-or-death before-the-paramedics-show-up kinds of situations. So, we’re not talking about a large proportion of instances to begin with, just the really critical ones. And for those, I’m comfortable weighing the potential benefit of people helping each other against the potential harm, and saying it’s worth giving Good Samaritans immunity. Not that it’s perfect - as you say, there are going to be situations where people make things worse - but I think (hope?) that those are in the minority. I suppose we should really be taking a look at some statistics, but I haven’t a clue where to start looking.
That’s about as likely as someone wrapping my head in a bandage when my foot is bleeding.
Chest compressions are administered when your heart isn’t beating. If someone thought I didn’t have a heartbeat, I’d rather they bust a rib or two.
For someone who has not seen many car crashes, except on TV and in the movies, is it really that unreasonable for the average person to think she sees something that looks foreboding based on her albeit very limited and skewed experience?
70% don’t. And I bet if you factored out hysterical laypeople and amped up well intentioned rescuers the percentage of non fractured ribs would be higher.
And yes I am opposed to good samaritan laws to the extent that they impose a duty on me to possibly endanger my life to attempt to rescue a stranger, I believe that is my choice to make not imposed by law, or that they protect people who act UNREASONABLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. While I may feel capable of assisting in a rescue I don’t want my wife to have to get involved in a possibly life threatening situation nor do I want some idiot making her situation worse if she is in danger.
O-man, before you come storming in blathering about how a real man would act I have been involved in several lifesaving white water rescues I served in combat and exposed myself to enemy fire to help a buddy more than once and was a volunteer EMT for my local fire department I have performed CPR on real life people with life threatening injuries two of them lived one of them died, none had fractured ribs as a result of my CPR efforts. So just save the bluster about real men and looking in the mirror, ok?
So if you crack my ribs because you made a mistake in thinking I needed CPR, I’m supposed to just grin and take it? That doesn’t sound equitable to me.
I notice that in the case mentioned in the OP the injured person ended up as a paraplegic. If someone pulled me out of a car unnecessarily, and aggravated my injuries such that I became a paraplegic, and I would not suffered the same fate if I had remained in the car, then I definitely think the “good samaritan” should suffer some kind of penalty. (My hypothetical doesn’t necessarily mean that this is what happened in the case mentioned in the OP.)
Yes, but as the dissenting judge pointed out, it will leave people at the risk of a lawsuit for all sorts of good samaritan actions ot just the catastrophic ones, like helping an injured hiker out of the woods.
If I find someone with a broken angle in the woods, I can splint his ankle, but I can’t help him out of the woods. So rather than bring him with me, which is easy enough, if I want to avoid litigation risk, the best I could do is hope he doesn’t die of shock and exposure while I hike out and alert the “trained professionals” and wait for them to get organized and go and try to find him based on my recollection of the trails. To me, leaving him would be unacceptably negligent, but if I try to get him to a ranger station and he stubs his toe, he can sue me into oblivion.
Even if that someone is insufficiently trained in detecting heartbeats? Or is not sure if he feels a heartbeat and performs the CPR “just in case”?
Actually I think those stats are usually based on the percentage of cracked ribs that occur when medical personnel administer CPR (either police, paramedics or in the ER).
You hear traffic reports, newspaper stories, etc. I don’t remember ever seeing a case where a car exploded. I have seen one accident involving a fire and there was plenty of time to get people out. No explosion there, either.
Here is what I would use the “reasonable” approach. If I know how far I am from the nearest place where I can contact a trained professional, and I know that I will be able to find the person again, and I know that the person will not die due to exposure before I get proper medical attention, then yes I will go find the trained professional and leave the injured party behind. But if you’re lost in a snowstorm and can’t tell your right from your left then of course you don’t leave your buddy behind to die while you head out to get some hot cocoa at the lodge…
That’s still 70% non fractured ribs.
Yes, I would rather someone risk busting my ribs if he couldn’t find a pulse, even if he didn’t know how to find one properly. If he’s wrong, I’ve got busted ribs. If he’s right, maybe I won’t die.
How long would you like me to wait to check? Your brain is right now slowly dying while I perform another check to be sure so that you don’t sue me.
Or, we could ask all of those who wish to reserve the right to sue to wear the equivalent of a medic alert bracelet. I check your wrist, see that you will sue me if anything goes wrong.
And I leave you to die.
I agree with you, but with the Good Samaritan law being pared away, there is a much greater risk that people will be too afraid of losing everything, and will leave the hiker in the snowstorm, or let the swimmer drown.
Can the bracelet say “If you act like an unreasonable idiot and cause me to be injured worse than I otherwise would be I will sue your ass off” If so, I would wear one…
But we don’t in fact need them, the law already says if you act reasonably under the circumstances you will not be liable. Sure we may need a trial to determine if people acted reasonably but what is the alternative?
Good Samaritan laws do not impose a duty upon you - they just protect you if DO choose to help.
(I also do some volunteer firefighting as well)
This gets to the issue.
If sued, the samaritan will not be liable if she acted reasonably. And of course the parties need to resolve what, in fact, is reasonable.
From the brief discussion in the story, it sounds as tho she may not have been reasonable in thinking an explosion imminent, or in the manner she moved the victim (“yanked like a rag doll”).
There are a lot of downright stupid people out there. Do you really think that injured parties ought not have recourse against people who harm them out of their stupidity - however well intentioned?
(And I’m generally not a big fan of PI suits.)
Nope - you have the bracelet, I have a home to protect. I am not putting my family at risk from your attorney. I will leave you to die.
Good Samaritan is the alternative - it says that if you help, you can’t be sued. You don’t have to worry about defending yourself.
Ya know…
If you are so out of it you can’t tell the good samaritan to stay the frack away from you, statistically speaking you are probably better off having someone “help” you than not.
And…I’d be somewhat surprised that performing CPR when its NOT needed leads to anything major… versus NOT performing CPR when its needed…which leads to well…one less pissy lawsuit loving “victim” alive to sue anyone in sight.