Most states have what is called a "Good Samartian" law. Essentially, it absolves you of legal liability if you are attempting to render emergency medical aid to someone in order to save their life. Thus, if you see someone having a heart attach and rush over to perform CPR, the survivor can not sue you for breaking a rib while saving their life. But most of these laws also have a proviso that you must be certified to perform measures like CPR. My high school offers free training and certification to all students who request it, in an attempt to increase the number of potential Good Samaritans.
A lot of people are up in arms over a recent California court ruling that their Good Samaritan law does not apply to "non-medical actions" that may be taken to save a life. In this case, someone wrapped their car around a light pole. A "good samaritan" came and pulled them out, and in the process may have damaged the victim's vertebrae and rendered them a parapalegic.
I am torn about this one. On the one hand, it seems to me pulling someone from a burning vehicle is just as important as performing CPR. Do we really want to tell our citizens that it is okay to let someone burn alive, because otherwise they are civilly liable? On the other hand, at EVERY first aid class I have EVER had, the FIRST thing they tell you is "if someone could have had their neck or back hurt, DO NOT MOVE THEM unless required to save them from a worse fate." The "good samaritan" in this case should have known that as well. What do our readers think?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder