Select to expand quote
Mark _australia said...busterwa said..
000 or 911 in Australia.
You are under no obligation legally to assist a life threatening instance or obligated to give cpr If you choose to. If you do respond to a person who is unable to respond to a audioable summons (deemed unconscious )You will not be held liable for any damages ( pulling a person with back injuries out of a car) You can not be held liable for someone unconscious and your trying cpr ! (including kids)
I did the refresher a few months back and we bombarded the trainer with legal questions ! he did recommend carrying on of these.^ ! This is due to the fact you may be putting yourself at risk engaging in cpr.
We do it at work There boring videos but well worth a watch !
The highlighted bit - pretty bad advice there. NO you don't have to do things that are beyond your capabilities......... but the offences of failing to render assistance (at a traffic crash) or failing to provide necessities of life (any situation) DO still exist. So if you stand motionless you can be held accountable. Nobody expects you to provide a trachyotomy or something, but if somebody simply needs dragging away form a scene and pressure on a wound and you do fk all you can be charged (and deserve to be, IMO)
Sorry Mark - not true. You don't have to render assistance...but if you choose to, and make a start - you must continue to provide assistance until the ambos arrive. Many professional 'medically trained' professionals won't stop at an accident scene for reasons that are difficult to explain. There are 2 legal precedents in place the 'good Samaritan rule', where you cannot be held responsible for the outcome where you have provided assistance within 'your training', and your 'moral obligation' - where if you choose to start assisting an injured person, you must stay until additional assistance arrives on scene.
I'm happy to stand corrected, but I'll continue to spend my valuable time being both a rescuer and training those in rescue techniques until a point where the rescuer is held responsible for the outcome not within their training. In many cases, a bystander is much better off not being involved as they and their families will suffer the grief that can be isolated to just the casualty's family.
As a volunteer rescuer and trainer/assessor of rescuers - I'm fully aware of my/our obligations (in uniform and off duty). The comment that you must render assistance is profound as I can tell (in most cases) what the outcome will possibly be - although I've been happily corrected on rescues where the casualties have made miraculous recoveries. This keeps me doing what I do by the way.
I volunteer enough of my time trying to rescue people that have made stupid decisions and whilst I will continue to provide my time to help others, I will not put myself in a position where I can be held responsible for the outcome of someone else's poor choices.
My family passed an accident tonight on the way home from my son's footy presentation...ambulance, police cars blocking the scene - my guess would be that the motorbike rider was in bad shape. Did we stop? Hell no! The casualty had the best chance they had with the assistance on-scene and it wasn't my job to interfere.
A comment that has stuck with me from my early days in rescue that I'm happy to share "we didn't put them there - so let's not risk more lives getting them outta there!"
It may sound selfish but if people knew the psychological damage that can be done from untrained (and trained) persons witnessing a serious accident, they would choose not to get involved. Rescuing involves no heroics - just a thick skin and supporting family/friends.