7 ms·

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

by 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!
        sokoloff 10y ago
        Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    That nobody has been sued for this in the UK does appear to be a common belief amongst professional organisations. "Despite the fact that no-one in the UK has been sued for providing first aid, it is a common fear that we’re regularly asked about." - Joe Mulligan, British Red Cross, 2015 "Although potential legal liability arising from good samaritan acts is something about which we're regularly asked by healthcare professionals, in practice we have never encountered a UK doctor, paramedic, nurse or other healthcare professional being sued after providing this kind of emergency assistance." - Shoosmiths, a major UK law firm that I have heard described as "Ambulance Chasers". It seems to be common in the US for people to get sued for helping. Not so much in the UK, and following the 2105 SARAH act, which creates additional protections for such people, now even less likely.
    - cmdkeen 10y ago
      Devon Air Ambulance used to tell a story, possibly apocryphal, about a callout to the middle of Dartmoor. In the course of treating a woman they had to cut off her cashmere top. After the incident they received a demand from the woman to pay for the damage done to her top, valued at several hundred pounds. They replied that they would of course pay if she would reimburse them for the cost of the flight - enclosing a bill for £10,000. Answer came there none.
      - EliRivers 10y ago
        I do know that sometimes people do seek to start legal proceedings against emergency services. I worked with a fireman once who told me of a lady who wanted to start legal proceedings for some kind of assault based on how a fireman picked her up to carry her out of a building. Again, came to nothing. In this day and age, if we cannot find any UK instance of someone being sued for providing first aid, I think we can label it "urban myth". Maybe some obsessive HN reader will find one for us :)
        DanBC 10y ago
        http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ > The most important thing to remember is that to date, no one in the UK has ever been sued for administering life-saving First Aid. But also: http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_status_of_those_who_provide_first_aid.pdf http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_s... > There have been some cases in the UK where a claim has been brought against a ‘rescuer’, although there have been no reported cases in court where a casualty has successfully sued someone. > • Out-of-court settlements are more common and go unreported, so it is likely that some claims against a rescuer have been ‘successful’, but these will have gone unreported. > • It should be noted that even if a first aider is successful in defending himself against a claim, it is unlikely that he will be able to recover the full legal costs in defending himself. In civil litigation, it is unusual for a court to award the successful party more than 80% of their costs and it’s possible that an accusation can cost tens of thousands of pounds to defend. > • In some instances it can be less expensive to settle a claim out of court than to defend it. It is not uncommon for insurers to settle claims even when the defendant was innocent, as this is the least expensive and least risky option.
- 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.

by 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!
        sokoloff 10y ago
        Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
- EliRivers 10y ago
  That nobody has been sued for this in the UK does appear to be a common belief amongst professional organisations. "Despite the fact that no-one in the UK has been sued for providing first aid, it is a common fear that we’re regularly asked about." - Joe Mulligan, British Red Cross, 2015 "Although potential legal liability arising from good samaritan acts is something about which we're regularly asked by healthcare professionals, in practice we have never encountered a UK doctor, paramedic, nurse or other healthcare professional being sued after providing this kind of emergency assistance." - Shoosmiths, a major UK law firm that I have heard described as "Ambulance Chasers". It seems to be common in the US for people to get sued for helping. Not so much in the UK, and following the 2105 SARAH act, which creates additional protections for such people, now even less likely.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    Devon Air Ambulance used to tell a story, possibly apocryphal, about a callout to the middle of Dartmoor. In the course of treating a woman they had to cut off her cashmere top. After the incident they received a demand from the woman to pay for the damage done to her top, valued at several hundred pounds. They replied that they would of course pay if she would reimburse them for the cost of the flight - enclosing a bill for £10,000. Answer came there none.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      I do know that sometimes people do seek to start legal proceedings against emergency services. I worked with a fireman once who told me of a lady who wanted to start legal proceedings for some kind of assault based on how a fireman picked her up to carry her out of a building. Again, came to nothing. In this day and age, if we cannot find any UK instance of someone being sued for providing first aid, I think we can label it "urban myth". Maybe some obsessive HN reader will find one for us :)
      - DanBC 10y ago
        http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ > The most important thing to remember is that to date, no one in the UK has ever been sued for administering life-saving First Aid. But also: http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_status_of_those_who_provide_first_aid.pdf http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_s... > There have been some cases in the UK where a claim has been brought against a ‘rescuer’, although there have been no reported cases in court where a casualty has successfully sued someone. > • Out-of-court settlements are more common and go unreported, so it is likely that some claims against a rescuer have been ‘successful’, but these will have gone unreported. > • It should be noted that even if a first aider is successful in defending himself against a claim, it is unlikely that he will be able to recover the full legal costs in defending himself. In civil litigation, it is unusual for a court to award the successful party more than 80% of their costs and it’s possible that an accusation can cost tens of thousands of pounds to defend. > • In some instances it can be less expensive to settle a claim out of court than to defend it. It is not uncommon for insurers to settle claims even when the defendant was innocent, as this is the least expensive and least risky option.
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.