I sympathise with the poor souls in EMT, and the casualty and emergency sections of hospitals who have to put up with the people who abuse drugs and alcohol on Friday and Saturday nights and present with all sorts of problems as a result, including a predisposition to violence road accident trauma. The time and resources the trivial cases take up is enormous and contributes greatly to the waiting times for treatment by people with more legitimate issues.

Your post might be fine in theory, but even the deliverers of training courses where I live have pulled back over the past 20 years on what should and shouldn't be done because of liability issues. Often the reality is completely different to the theory.

Once a week I volunteer with a ministry that serves soup and sandwiches out of a motor home. There is one guy that always has a $10 problem. One of these days I'm going to tell him the story of the boy who cried wolf. And all the other 30 to 50 people we serve each night would be better off if we gave them $10 too. It just becomes impossible. Once in a while, when the story is particularly compelling or creative I give in. That perpetuates the problem. Having received the needed $10 once, he is motivated to continue to fish in the same pond.

I'm a firm believer in the "Teach a man to fish" adage, unfortunately somebody taught him the wrong type of fishing for the rest of us.

You couldn't be further from reality. In all of North America at least there are Good Samaritan Laws. They completely absolve people from liability while assisting others as long as they follow the Reasonable Person rule. In Skilsaw's case and assuming what happened is as he posted he incurred no liability under any conceivable circumstance.

In the same way if any of us stops to help someone and we don't do something way out of the ballpark, like attempting roadside brain surgery, or attempting some of the weird things seen on TV we are protected. Fear of liability is just a cop out excuse for not helping another human in need.

This might be a good time to say that my comment about the original encounter was to be sure the mess was properly cleaned up so no one else had an exposure to potential nasties. That from a biohazard viewpoint he would have been better off calling the folks with vehicles that can be hosed and mopped out.

From a human care viewpoint what to do is always a matter of judgement. The only wrong answer is to do nothing either out of fear, or because the person doesn't meet our standards of hygiene and behaviour.

^^^^ Correct.

I worked securty at a large hospital.

One Saturday afternoon a frantic lady carried (from the parking garage 4 levels below) her 10 year old son and laid him on the counter in front of me.

She said I need the Emergency Room. Can you help me?

The kid was NOT Breathing.

She had called her doctor from home and asked him "What to Do" as the kid was having great difficulty breathing.

Doc said drive him to the hospital.

The kid was already gone. The 7 member medical crash team was not able to bring him back

Please call 911....Please.

And what makes you think the medical doctor's instructions were wrong? What makes you think that the doctor didn't consider that before issuing his instructions?

Calling 911, or its' eqivalent, is not a magic potion to solve all ills. You don't post anything but the barest of outline. But, I'll bet the doc took the patient's condition, respond time of the ambulance and probably several other factors into consideration before he made the decision to have the mother drive to the hospital. Reality is that not all outcomes are what we want. There are outcomes we don't like even when everyone does things exactly right.

I was very careful to put in my post "where I live", which is not North America, so your comment about being further from reality is just hyperbole. The intent of my comment was also beyond skilsaw's case, as that was the way the discussion had evolved.

You might also cite examples of the laws you quote. They might absolve liability, but legal absolution has never stopped people from sueing for damages, particularly if there is total and permanent incapacitation involved.

And in this day and age, "duty to other humans" is a very moot point. Discussion on that, however, is like opening Pandora's box and would consign this thread to the P&R forum.

One of the very real issues that is serving against "getting involved" is the death or serious injury to people who go to the aid of victims. There was a case three or fours years ago when a man was shot dead when he went to the aid of a woman being assaulted with a hand gun in a major city street in my state.

One of the first principles taught in first aid training where I live is to ensure you are safe first. Being a Good Samaritan is one thing, being a dead one is another entirely.

And these things will be attempted more and more as people think they are being trained in medical procedures and forensic medicine by sitting on the couch in front of the television set or using Google. It's already become evident in court cases as jurors ask questions they think are relevant based on what they have seen portrayed in TV dramas.

So, rather than use some judgement you would rather watch someone die? That is what prompted the Good Samaritan laws in the first place. In fact a good argument can be made that you are more likely to have some action taken against you for not acting than for acting. In some states if you were in even remotely involved in say, a motor vehicle acccident, and failed to render aid you have committed a crime.

Don't fall victim to the Horns of A Dilemma Logic Fault. There is a broad area of action between doing nothing and being foolhardy. Not to recognize that is being silly. Of course use some judgement.

That is quite a leap of logic to relate juror's questions to people's actions in an emergency. If someone can't see that I suggest they are probably better off staying home, or at least not going out in public without their Guardian or Caretaker.

Machka has just returned from passing her latest first aid course with flying colours.

One of the key pieces of advice was that if there is ANY danger, the person offering assistance should back off and call for help.

PLUS, and this is the killer, you are liable in the country where I live if you do something that is outside your level of expertise.

And that means, if you don't hold a first aid certificate you should not be rendering any assistance whatsoever outside what would be considered a typical level of expertise for any person -- and that conceivably could be limited to dialling the emergency number.

Which, as the first aid course participants were told, is the first thing you do anyway if you are not at all comfortable with the situation.

In the case that started this thread, Machka would tell the woman to lie down on the ground, maybe throw a blanket over her, call the emergency number and continue to observe her and consider appropriate subsequent action if needed. It's become very hands off on everything other than making a person comfortable, calling that number, maybe doing CPR if needed, and stemming serious blood flow. That's what the first aid course suggests.

I would stick with the advice provided by the professionals who deliver these courses. While I appreciate that you come from a medical background, you of all people should realise that the majority of people anywhere in the world do not have adequate first aid training, major trauma is a very confronting thing for the average untrained citizen, there is a significant chance they will do more harm than good to someone who probably isn't going to die if they intervene, and they will always be better off calling for professional assistance.

Here's a beauty from Machka's course. A real-life example was used to quiz the participants on what they would do. A work colleague complained of chest pains. A course participant deadset wanted to use a defibrillator immediately. This despite the fact the patient was fully conscious, breathing, and had a heartbeat (albeit elevated), the ambulance had not been called, and the darned hospital was less than three minutes by car away.

Now you tell me, HawkOwl, what would have happened if that individual had been let loose on the patient under your help-at-all-costs-otherwise-we'll -make-a-criminal of you Good Samaritan laws.

Rowan, I don't know why you continue to jump to extremes. Your comments about Good Samaritan laws are just flat wrong. Since they are wrong you either are dumb, ignorant, a rabble rouser, or working for a higher post count for the owners of this forum. Or, maybe you don't live in North America which is where my comments pertain? I'd love to stay and play with you but today I have better things to do. So, I'll leave you with a comment.

There is no reason under the laws for a person to not help another person to the limit of their training and ability. Using fear of liability is a cop out to avoid helping a fellow human. If a person happens to be part of the cause, like in a MVA, most places they are legally obligated to render aid to the limit of their ability and training. Of course, if you are incapable of thinking and have no judgement then probably you shouldn't be there, or you can turn to your caretaker or guardian and ask them to help.

http://www.heartsafeam.com/pages/faq_good_samaritan

Good Samaritan law for VA: http://www.heartsafeam.com/files/Virginia_AED_Law.pdf

This whole thread reminds me of the "smelly car" episode from Seinfeld.

I must admit, no way would I have ever allowed her in my car. Indeed no good deed ever goes unpunished!

Following Good Samaritan Laws is a good way to end up loosing everything you ever worked for .......

Amazing.....simply amazing.... the guy does a decent thing for a fellow human being, and ends up getting nailed in a forum. He did what he thought was right at the time, and unfortunately, his vehicle was soiled. He cleaned it and carried on, no big deal. Why on earth are people giving him a ration of what he cleaned from his car? Cheers to Skilsaw for having the decency to help someone he thought was in need. Give him a break and lay off the negative comments!

Later,

You just simply don't get it, do you? :rolleyes: :lol:

Well said.

Plus, I am absolutely amazed at those who say they would not help someone else who was in trouble. I pray that these people aren't as selfish and uncaring and as poor examples of human beings as they appear in their posts.

soiled...? I would not call it that but whatever.