6 ms·

Its interesting that the other doctor did not volunteer this information. I did pool lifeguard training a few years ago (in the UK) and was told that as this tr

by clort 10y ago

Its interesting that the other doctor did not volunteer this information. I did pool lifeguard training a few years ago (in the UK) and was told that as this training is at a higher level than basic first aid training I would be legally required to notify my status and presence in an emergency, and that not doing so could leave me open to prosecution. Do doctors not have any obligations such as this laid upon them? (My lifeguard certification has expired now)

barking 10y ago
Every medical student hears horror stories where a doctor acting as a good samaritan in less than optimal conditions results in the person who was helped suing them afterwards.
- Introvertuous 10y ago
  So in other words, sued if you dont, sued if you do.
- sleavey 10y ago
  On my first aid training (UK) we were told that no court has ever passed a conviction based on someone trying to provide help in an emergency. It's only one data point, but it seems morally right to me.
  - barking 10y ago
    I don't know about that. I don't know how the people who told you that can be sure. Also you aren't really talking about criminal convictions but rather, civil actions which may never end up in front of a judge except to finalise things. These things can take years and you're dealing with no foal, no fee lawyers. Medical litigation can be an incredibly stressful situation and commonly there are coached clients who will look people in the eye and tell outright lies. These type of scummy lawyers won't go after joe soaps from whom nothing can be recovered. Also as a doctor on a flight, can you be sure that your insurer will cover you for your work outside the jurisdiction for which you're insured?
    - Xylakant 10y ago
      In germany all emergency aid is privileged in the sense that the law bars any suit against you (except probably purposefully causing damages and injury) and all insurance claims are covered by the Berufsgenossenschaft (sort of a public insurance for anything work-related). I'd expect that many jurisdictions have similar laws since that just makes sense from the view of the society.
      - barking 10y ago
        No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of day and can be fixed. Germany commonly seems to get a lot of things right.
        patrickdavey 10y ago
        "no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
        freddyc 10y ago
        I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
  - dazc 10y ago
    I was told something similar along the lines of '..if the patient isn't breathing, nothing you do will make it worse'
    - MistahKoala 10y ago
      Pretty much. Their chances only get worse without intervention whilst waiting for the emergency services to turn up. I was told to expect broken ribs etc - which, apparently, aren't as grave an outcome as death.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        The trainers on first aid courses I've attended have all said similar things. Yes, you are quite likely to break a casualty's ribs if you have to give them chest compressions. However, if you're a trained first aider and you're considering giving them chest compressions in the first place, presumably it's because you have ascertained that their heart isn't working properly and their life is therefore in immediate danger. Unless giving the compressions is getting in the way of something more important, like calling professional help as soon as possible or using an AED if one is available, it's practically impossible to make things worse for the casualty by trying.
      - throwaway049 10y ago
        One of my colleagues in the ambulance service got a formal complaint from a patient after a successful resus where the patient sustained two rib fractures. Fortunately the doc in charge of the ED stepped up and told the patient to stop being an ass.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Veratyr 10y ago
  In Australia my understanding is that there are laws preventing exactly this. This comes from a relative who's a registered nurse.
- lyschoening 10y ago
  That is a feature of US law, isn't it? Quite a few countries have laws that compel people to render first aid and at the same time offer protection from prosecution even if the first aid makes matters worse.
  - barking 10y ago
    There's an intersting article here on the US situation. Seems you do have good protection, though it's not absolute. http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/modernmedicine/modern-medicine-now/liability-risks-good-samaritan?page=full http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics...
  - blakeyrat 10y ago
    Both China and India have huge problems with citizens ignoring medical emergency to avoid being held responsible if the patient doesn't recover. The case of Wang Yue is famous enough that even most Americans have heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue
- Nutomic 10y ago
  In Germany, every citizen is required to give first aid, as long as he doesn't endanger himself. If you don't help, you can get sued. And the law protects first aiders, so they can't usually get sued if they do something wrong. Source (only in German): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Hilfe#Rechtliche_Situation https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Hilfe#Rechtliche_Situati...
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    In the US and probably the rest of the English speaking countries, typically only medical professionals and first responders are required to render aid, but the law does protect "good samaritans" from legal culpability if they do help.
    - JshWright 10y ago
      In the US, a 'duty to act' generally only exists if someone is 'on the clock'.
    - DINKDINK 10y ago
      At least in California, Good Samaritan laws will protect someone if and only if they are rendering medical aid that is in line with their training. Meaning if you know CPR and attempt to resuscitate someone who has no pulse and they die / have brain failure -> the law will protect you. If you know CPR and try to remove a bullet from someone's brain and they end up in a vegetative states (IANAL but) -> law probably won't protect you.
      - zeroflow 10y ago
        From my EMT course: The lawyer going after you would have to prove without doubt that the patient would clearly have survived if you didn't remove the bullet. In case of getting shot in the head, it's not very plausible that the patient would have survived anyways. From a actual lawsuit: Someone without the proper training started an IV which later caused sepsis and death. Since the patient was admitted to an hospital it was not clear if an improply placed IV caused the death or an improper care in the hospital.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 10y ago
  Those are mostly urban legends.
DanBC 10y ago
In the UK you're not legally required to provide assistance unless you have a duty of care. When you're lifeguarding you have that duty of care. When you're a passenger on a flight you don't. (I think once you start providing assistance you need to keep doing it)

by clort 10y ago

barking 10y ago

Every medical student hears horror stories where a doctor acting as a good samaritan in less than optimal conditions results in the person who was helped suing them afterwards.

Introvertuous 10y ago
So in other words, sued if you dont, sued if you do.
sleavey 10y ago
On my first aid training (UK) we were told that no court has ever passed a conviction based on someone trying to provide help in an emergency. It's only one data point, but it seems morally right to me.
- barking 10y ago
  I don't know about that. I don't know how the people who told you that can be sure. Also you aren't really talking about criminal convictions but rather, civil actions which may never end up in front of a judge except to finalise things. These things can take years and you're dealing with no foal, no fee lawyers. Medical litigation can be an incredibly stressful situation and commonly there are coached clients who will look people in the eye and tell outright lies. These type of scummy lawyers won't go after joe soaps from whom nothing can be recovered. Also as a doctor on a flight, can you be sure that your insurer will cover you for your work outside the jurisdiction for which you're insured?
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    In germany all emergency aid is privileged in the sense that the law bars any suit against you (except probably purposefully causing damages and injury) and all insurance claims are covered by the Berufsgenossenschaft (sort of a public insurance for anything work-related). I'd expect that many jurisdictions have similar laws since that just makes sense from the view of the society.
    - barking 10y ago
      No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of day and can be fixed. Germany commonly seems to get a lot of things right.
      - patrickdavey 10y ago
        "no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
        freddyc 10y ago
        I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
- dazc 10y ago
  I was told something similar along the lines of '..if the patient isn't breathing, nothing you do will make it worse'
  - MistahKoala 10y ago
    Pretty much. Their chances only get worse without intervention whilst waiting for the emergency services to turn up. I was told to expect broken ribs etc - which, apparently, aren't as grave an outcome as death.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      The trainers on first aid courses I've attended have all said similar things. Yes, you are quite likely to break a casualty's ribs if you have to give them chest compressions. However, if you're a trained first aider and you're considering giving them chest compressions in the first place, presumably it's because you have ascertained that their heart isn't working properly and their life is therefore in immediate danger. Unless giving the compressions is getting in the way of something more important, like calling professional help as soon as possible or using an AED if one is available, it's practically impossible to make things worse for the casualty by trying.
    - throwaway049 10y ago
      One of my colleagues in the ambulance service got a formal complaint from a patient after a successful resus where the patient sustained two rib fractures. Fortunately the doc in charge of the ED stepped up and told the patient to stop being an ass.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Veratyr 10y ago
In Australia my understanding is that there are laws preventing exactly this. This comes from a relative who's a registered nurse.
lyschoening 10y ago
That is a feature of US law, isn't it? Quite a few countries have laws that compel people to render first aid and at the same time offer protection from prosecution even if the first aid makes matters worse.
- barking 10y ago
  There's an intersting article here on the US situation. Seems you do have good protection, though it's not absolute. http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/modernmedicine/modern-medicine-now/liability-risks-good-samaritan?page=full http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics...
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  Both China and India have huge problems with citizens ignoring medical emergency to avoid being held responsible if the patient doesn't recover. The case of Wang Yue is famous enough that even most Americans have heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wang_Yue
Nutomic 10y ago
In Germany, every citizen is required to give first aid, as long as he doesn't endanger himself. If you don't help, you can get sued. And the law protects first aiders, so they can't usually get sued if they do something wrong. Source (only in German): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Hilfe#Rechtliche_Situation https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Hilfe#Rechtliche_Situati...
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  In the US and probably the rest of the English speaking countries, typically only medical professionals and first responders are required to render aid, but the law does protect "good samaritans" from legal culpability if they do help.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    In the US, a 'duty to act' generally only exists if someone is 'on the clock'.
  - DINKDINK 10y ago
    At least in California, Good Samaritan laws will protect someone if and only if they are rendering medical aid that is in line with their training. Meaning if you know CPR and attempt to resuscitate someone who has no pulse and they die / have brain failure -> the law will protect you. If you know CPR and try to remove a bullet from someone's brain and they end up in a vegetative states (IANAL but) -> law probably won't protect you.
    - zeroflow 10y ago
      From my EMT course: The lawyer going after you would have to prove without doubt that the patient would clearly have survived if you didn't remove the bullet. In case of getting shot in the head, it's not very plausible that the patient would have survived anyways. From a actual lawsuit: Someone without the proper training started an IV which later caused sepsis and death. Since the patient was admitted to an hospital it was not clear if an improply placed IV caused the death or an improper care in the hospital.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
criddell 10y ago
Those are mostly urban legends.

DanBC 10y ago

In the UK you're not legally required to provide assistance unless you have a duty of care. When you're lifeguarding you have that duty of care. When you're a passenger on a flight you don't. (I think once you start providing assistance you need to keep doing it)