# The rules changed



## micsaver (Oct 16, 2008)

OK I realize for some of you it would seem that this issue has been beat with a stick, but after searching the threads I still have the same question. 

It's my understanding that in MA there is no "duty to act" if you are off-duty. That if you do respond to assist a person with an injury or medical issue that you act at your level of certification. If your an EMT-B you would provide care at that level. Anything less could be considered negligent even with the good samaritan laws.

This is a bit confusing though... if I am off duty and I find a woman that was holding an icepack to her head because she tripped and hit her head... She has no AMS, Pupils = round and reactive, she is pink-warm & dry. No loss of consciousness w/ Slight nausea and dizziness that went away after sitting for a bit. BUT I didn't put her in a collar with a back board (because I was off duty at my non-emt job) and just recommended that she go to the hospital or see her doctor ASAP. She didn't want an ambulance and it didn't seem she needed one. She was picked up and taken to her doctor.

So would that be negligent? Should you really not get involved unless it is major trauma, because then you would call an ambulance anyway? My initial reaction is to help when I see someone fall, hand out a band-aid for a minor cut, or even stop when I come upon a car accident with moderate-major damage (if the scene is safe). Reading all the threads is making me second guess my natural response. It makes me feel like I should hesitate to help in minor situations. It leaves me feeling extremely guilty that I haven't helped out when it seemed like no big deal. I became an EMT so that I would have better knowledge and training to help people, even when off duty. God, now I feel like helping people when I'm not on duty isn't a good idea. I hate that the rules have change.


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 16, 2008)

I have a few different licenses which include many skills. When I am off duty I carry a cell phone. I may have more knowledge to be a little more insistent about the pt seeing a doctor or calling 911 or PD. 

I can do only what any first aider can as far as equipment...and that is all I care to do off duty. That is all any state can legally expect of you unless you are on the clock as call back and compensated.

You can still be there to help by keeping others and *yourself safe*. You can still be with the patient, make the call to 911 if needed and keep everyone calm while providing basic first aid. However, don't try to be a hero without the necessary protective equipment that many endanger you or leave your family unattended in a car that might put them or others in harms way.


----------



## csly27 (Oct 16, 2008)

When your off duty do you normally carry a collar and backboard with you while off duty? probably not. The fact that you stopped and were willing to help and stayed with the her untill someone came to pick her up was great I think. If you provided the care that she needed with what you had to work with, had she needed a collar and things then you would have called 9-11 and to make sure her airway was maintained you would still be coverd by good sam laws.
Remember I am still a student.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 16, 2008)

in mass, you practice under the authority grandted to you by your services medical director. off duty, you are not authorized to practice outside of basic first responder skill. 

its a tight line in this state. your best bet is to call an ambulance and provide basic aid until they arrive. allow the people covered by their insurance and medical direction to handle it. only they can properly document a refusal.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 16, 2008)

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. Are you going to give out your full name and such to a patient? How about to a police officer unless explicitly asked? Contact information? If acting as an off duty first responder and yielding to any on duty EMS crew, do you even really need to say you're an EMT-B? The assessment you mentioned in your scenario can be done by observation and talking to the patient without letting the patient know about your level of training. If the patient doesn't know who you are past John Doe, GS (Good Samaritan) (or at most <nickname or first name>, GS), can you really be sued?


----------



## flhtci01 (Oct 16, 2008)

micsaver said:


> It's my understanding that in MA there is no "duty to act" if you are off-duty. That if you do respond to assist a person with an injury or medical issue that you act at your level of certification. If your an EMT-B you would provide care at that level. Anything less could be considered negligent even with the good samaritan laws.



Most areas once you begin to assist, you have a duty to act, but it is either at First Responder or Basic level.  For example, if I am off-duty and stop to assist someone, I can only act at the Basic level and call 911.  If I am in my service area, once the crew is paged out, I can do advanced skills.  If I am not in my service area, I stay at a Basic level. 



JPINFV said:


> If the patient doesn't know who you are past John Doe, GS (Good Samaritan) (or at most <nickname or first name>, GS), can you really be sued?



I think it could be a possibility if they can identify you, such as a license plate.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 16, 2008)

from a legal stand point, his identity would be fairly easy to ascertain. 

the op stated that he was working at his off duty job. not tto hard for a lawyer to come up later and say "who was the employee that offered medical aid to such and such a peron on such date".

unfortunatley this is massachusetts where every single decision you make every day has to be weighed against whether or not your going to get sued.


----------



## BossyCow (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't know of a single system that will mandate you act when it is unsafe to do so. If you have no gloves or other PPE, no information regarding the safety of the scene (was her head injury from her S.O. hitting her with something heavy and is he still around?) you can't be made to enter that scene. Bare minimum, call dispatch and have them send EMS.


----------



## Hastings (Oct 16, 2008)

Honestly, just don't stop when you're off duty.

This is the kind of thing you open yourself up to. If there's question in your mind whether you're covered, you're not. And you will likely be sued regardless of treatment or outcome.


----------



## cuvtixo (Oct 16, 2008)

*Maybe get a new lucrative career at a law firm?*

Anyone who tried to help could get sued.  
This isn't a problem specific to emergency responders.
Chances of being successfully sued for helping are probably low, but sometimes strange things happen in court.  But don't blame your training! If anything, you're position has given you a chance to think about this issue which you would be a possible target anyways.  But relax, as an EMT, (at your second job no less) you're not exactly a prime target for gold-diggers or scam artists.  I think I can safely assume no one is getting rich from suing you.  (No offense! no one is going to get much from me for sure!) Final word is that it may be safer to not identify yourself as any sort of medical professional, and not to identify yourself at all!  

But please put this in perspective.


----------



## Hastings (Oct 16, 2008)

cuvtixo said:


> Anyone who tried to help could get sued.
> This isn't a problem specific to emergency responders.
> Chances of being successfully sued for helping are probably low, but sometimes strange things happen in court.  But don't blame your training! If anything, you're position has given you a chance to think about this issue which you would be a possible target anyways.  But relax, as an EMT, (at your second job no less) you're not exactly a prime target for gold-diggers or scam artists.  I think I can safely assume no one is getting rich from suing you.  (No offense! no one is going to get much from me for sure!) Final word is that it may be safer to not identify yourself as any sort of medical professional, and not to identify yourself at all!
> 
> But please put this in perspective.



A few problems here. Yes, it is a problem pretty specific to emergency responders. Yes, there are people out there wanting to actually scam you. No, changes of successfully being sued as an emergency responder in a civilian situation are actually quite high; courts usually side with the "victim". Yes, as an EMT, you are ESPECIALLY the target of scammers; possibly only second to cops. No, you're not safe to assume that; people often get rich off suing medical personnel. Lastly, you're damned if you identify yourself, and you're damned if you don't. Avoid it all together. Don't stop when it's not your job.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 16, 2008)

Well thanks everyone for clearing it up a bit. I guess it will always be a bit of a gray area. I can fully understand why some people would say "don't stop unless it's your job", as in - you're on duty. But doesn't that just suck. We wonder why someone can be struck by a car in front of people on a Hartford CT street and the people just keep walking...the cars just drive around the body. No one even stops the already minimal traffic to see if the man is alive. The bystandard effect is a crappy thing and we make it worse when we live in a society where those that are trained to help, want to help, but will choose not to because of the sue crazy world we live in.


----------



## Hastings (Oct 16, 2008)

micsaver said:


> Well thanks everyone for clearing it up a bit. I guess it will always be a bit of a gray area. I can fully understand why some people would say "don't stop unless it's your job", as in - you're on duty. But doesn't that just suck. We wonder why someone can be struck by a car in front of people on a Hartford CT street and the people just keep walking...the cars just drive around the body. No one even stops the already minimal traffic to see if the man is alive. The bystandard effect is a crappy thing and we make it worse when we live in a society where those that are trained to help, want to help, but will choose not to because of the sue crazy world we live in.



The safest thing you can do for  for yourself and THE PATIENT - any injured person in the road - is call for appropriate help. You are putting yourself and, more importantly, the patient in danger by stopping and giving care.

The only case where I would even CONSIDER doing something is someone that goes into cardiac arrest in front of me at the mall or something. I would probably do CPR and use the AED after calling 911, however, I've seen a medic get sued over just doing that. 

But road injuries? NEVER EVER. Don't do it. Call 911 and go about your business.



P.S. More than once, a patient has been paralyzed when a bystander stopped and moved that victim.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 16, 2008)

it has very little to do with the overall outcome of of the case.

if your on duty, the companies attorney will represent you. if your off duty, you either pay for your own attorney or take the public defender.

if your up on charges that could end your career, do you want an attorney that specializes in heathcare law or a guy thats been out of law school for 6 days and this is his first time in a court room cause its entirely possible that thats what your going to get.


----------



## cuvtixo (Oct 16, 2008)

*Damned if you do...*

MASSACHUSETTS has a duty-to-rescue statute, as does Vermont, Minnesota, and Rhode Island and four other states. I think the last episode of Seinfield revolved around the crew getting jailed for neglecting to help someone, and its based on a real law.
You are open to lawsuits if you do not help, especially as a medical person!


----------



## Hastings (Oct 16, 2008)

cuvtixo said:


> MASSACHUSETTS has a duty-to-rescue statute, as does Vermont, Minnesota, and Rhode Island and four other states. I think the last episode of Seinfield revolved around the crew getting jailed for neglecting to help someone, and its based on a real law.
> You are open to lawsuits if you do not help, especially as a medical person!



In that case, THAT is what sucks, not the fact that it's safer not to help. I'm sorry to hear that. I only hope those states have the appropriate coverage for those that do get pulled into that unfortunate situation of being required to help.


----------



## cuvtixo (Oct 17, 2008)

*Duty to Act*

Vermont Statute 12-23-519, states that a person has a duty to render reasonable assistance if they have knowledge of another person in physical danger or that is injured. There is an exemption that states that a person does not have to render any type of assistance that would place the rescuer in physical danger, or if an obligation to a third party would prevent them from acting. The statute goes on to grant civil immunity for all but gross negligence on the part of the rescuer.
A Minnesota statute differs in that it only places the duty to aid on witnesses at the scene of an emergency, whereas the Vermont statute is triggered if anyone has knowledge of another in danger. Minnesota provides civil immunity to the rescuer for anything falling short of willful and wanton or reckless conduct.  In 1994, Wisconsin enacted a statute almost identical in nature to that of Minnesota and in 1996, the state of Colorado followed suit.


----------



## jrm818 (Oct 17, 2008)

cuvtixo said:


> MASSACHUSETTS has a duty-to-rescue statute, as does Vermont, Minnesota, and Rhode Island and four other states. I think the last episode of Seinfield revolved around the crew getting jailed for neglecting to help someone, and its based on a real law.
> You are open to lawsuits if you do not help, especially as a medical person!



NOPE!...Vermont true, the rest who knows, but MA has a duty to REPORT law, NOT a duty to rescue law.  All you have to do is call 911.  Seinfeld was actually accurate in that regard..except i think it was a local rather than state law in those 2 episodes.....

in general, even if there is a clear good Samaritan law, the standard for negligence is higher for an EMT or medical professional than for joe the plumber.  You are held to a reasonable person standard, but reasonable for an EMT is different than reasonable for an handyman.  MA avoids this altogether by not having a clear law in the first place.  On duty you are exempt form personal liability.   Off duty...who knows.  Beyond CPR personally I don't plan on doing much of anything unless I know the pt. or I'm in the town where I volunteer.  Then i'll call it in and bingo - I'm on duty.  

Depending on circumstances, i MIGHT call my own service from another town and request to act as an EMT providing mutual aid service to the town I'm in....but I can't really think of a scenario where I'd do that.  I'm really just kind of curious what my legal status would be in this hypothetical situation.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 17, 2008)

I found this for MA General Laws:

Chapter 111C: Section 21. EMS personnel; good faith performance of duties; limitation on personal liability

Section 21. No EMS personnel certified, accredited or otherwise approved under this chapter, and no additional personnel certified or authorized under section 9, who in the performance of their duties and in good faith render emergency first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, transportation, or other EMS, to an injured person or to a person incapacitated by illness shall be personally liable as a result of rendering such aid or services or, in the case of an emergency medical technician or additional personnel, as a result of transporting such person to a hospital or other health care facility, nor shall they be liable to a hospital for its expenses if, under emergency conditions, they cause the admission of such person to said hospital. 
*****
And then I did a Case law search and came across this case, as an example

 Campbell v. Schwartz, No. 97-P-2105 , APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, April 15, 1999, Argued , July 21, 1999, Decided
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was barred by state "Good Samaritan" statute, where defendants attempted but failed to rescue a highly-intoxicated decedent under dangerously adverse weather conditions.

12. Ksypka v. Cox, Opinion No.: 97054, Docket Number: 05-00820 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, February 1, 2007, Decided
OVERVIEW: Because nothing in the record showed that the first aid services actually rendered at the scene were performed in a negligent manner, and because the emergency exception to the doctrine of informed consent applied, an executor's negligence and lack of informed consent claims against the emergency medical technicians were dismissed.

*****

I guess what it comes down to is if I'm off duty and I can A) accept that I may put my self in some harms way (like if I attempt to slow traffic or stop traffic for an accident or person in the road)  and  B) accept that I may be taken to court and either be found guilty or not guilty-but still have to deal with court costs...... Than I am good to go. OK I'm willing to, at least at the minimum, accept those odds. I am a reasonable person and wouldn't run into a full on burning building or into the middle of the highway. But for the love of God I'm not someone that could walk away when there is something I could do, within reason, beyond calling 9-1-1.


----------



## sethking (Oct 22, 2008)

its like that in california too, if you do stop you are supposed to provide your level of certification treatment... therefore you are working in a legal emt capacity... she wasnt altered and was ano x4 so that should have been fine... thats how i think of it


----------



## reaper (Oct 22, 2008)

sethking said:


> its like that in california too, if you do stop you are supposed to provide your level of certification treatment... therefore you are working in a legal emt capacity... she wasnt altered and was ano x4 so that should have been fine... thats how i think of it




I would like to see the law? I guess they carry full equipment in their trunks!


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 22, 2008)

reaper said:


> I would like to see the law? I guess they carry full equipment in their trunks!


 
California?  Every county is different.


----------



## Sapphyre (Oct 23, 2008)

Sorry, seth's a little wrong.  It's more like (and I'm paraphrasing here) Good Sam covers you so long as the care you provide does not exceed your level of training.  AKA, Good Sam won't cover a basic who does a MacGyver trach just because they saw Richard Dean Anderson do it in a rerun, once.  I carry gloves in my car, and if hubby hasn't stolen it, a basic first aid kit, that's it.  The gloves are for my own protection.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 23, 2008)

*"Off duty" may limit treatment and equipment use or purchase.*

See the label that says "Not for sale or use without a doctor's order"? (Sometimes "prescription"). Know who the medical director is? Those two things mean that, unless you are under the orders of a competent MD, and if you are off duty you probably are not, then you cannot use any medical device of that class. Not even if you didn't "buy" it, but either stole, borrowed, or even made your own. That includes cervical collars, I believe, and numerous other items. Your private possession of some could be a crime in your state.

If you act reasonably and save someone's life you can still experience repercussions legally and professionally, but fulfilled your ethical and moral obligations. Or, you could kill someone or leave them paralyzed because you acted prematurely (i.e., fine, you did A-B-C-D, but no way to go on to F-G-H until the squad got there anyway). One of those "oh-two in the morning at home" questions.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 23, 2008)

*Ps:*

I do carry my jump kit when I'm going somewhere help won't be nearby, but as a nurse I can do some stuff and skirt some rules a better-qualified EMS field person can't here in Calif. Contents of my kit are listed under "what's on your belt", I believe. 
Sucks don't it?


----------



## marineman (Oct 23, 2008)

mycrofft said:


> Sucks don't it?



That's the license vs. certificate argument it doesn't really suck to me. When you do "skirt" those rules it's because you have a valid license that it will fall back on and at that time your are practicing as an RN (I'm assuming that's your level). We can't practice on our certificate without medical oversight so we're limited in what we can do but then we're covered by good samaritan laws. Given my choice of malpractice insurance vs. good samaritan law I'd rather be covered as a good sam.

Mycrofft I'm sure you already knew all of that, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence but hopefully explain for any newbies how you get around the rules.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 23, 2008)

*marineman you'll have to work harder to insult me.*

especially after the steer loader I posted above.

Many techs are better qualified than I am, but by law they are stuck.


----------



## bstone (Oct 24, 2008)

According to this, there is a duty to rescue in MA:

"Four other states have enacted duty-to-rescue statutes: Vermont, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Duties-to-rescue statutes also exist in 13 European countries. The punishment for a misdemeanor offense is a maximum of 90 days in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both."
http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=67&newsType=1


----------



## jrm818 (Oct 24, 2008)

according to the actual law, the newspaper article (from Washington no less) you cite is wrong (big surprise....an incorrect newspaper article).  Wikipedia agrees with you - but, egads!...they cite the same newspaper article.  

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/268-40.htm

I'll fedex a dollar to anyone who can show me an actual law (not a blog post from someone who once heard that, just maybe, you are supposed to help) suggesting a duty to act in an emergency situation in MA....

if you want to fight with secondary sources

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/2006_08_01_archive.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/84/84hyman.pdf  page 38 footnote


----------



## micsaver (Oct 24, 2008)

there is no "duty to rescue" act in MA that requires someone to "rescue" another person. Your only duty as joe shmoe on the street if you see someone that needs help or "rescue" is to call 911. 

the law says that you don't need to put yourself in harms way ie run into traffic. If you are the only person around and don't call for help, then there are issues. You could be fined, sued in civil court or if it was a criminal situation be charged with anything ranging from neglect to accessory after the fact (obviously depending on the circumstances). 

Bottom line, even if you think someone else could have called it in...just pick up a phone and call 911. Then you did your duty.


----------



## medicdan (Oct 24, 2008)

From an OEMS memo released just three weeks ago, a discussion of when EMTs stop with a patient loaded. There is a clear duty to stop/rescue if no patient loaded (no citation, common sense). But there is not a mandated duty to stop/rescue when loaded. 

To quote the memo, "Therefore, if there is a visible need for EMS resources; the patient on board is stable; patient care is not compromised by a delay in transport and the scene is safe; EMTs may, but are not required, to stop at another emergency scene."
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/emergency_services/ambulance_stopping_advisory_20081001.pdf


----------



## jrm818 (Oct 24, 2008)

emt-student said:


> From an OEMS memo released just three weeks ago, a discussion of when EMTs stop with a patient loaded. There is a clear duty to stop/rescue if no patient loaded (no citation, common sense). But there is not a mandated duty to stop/rescue when loaded.
> 
> To quote the memo, "Therefore, if there is a visible need for EMS resources; the patient on board is stable; patient care is not compromised by a delay in transport and the scene is safe; EMTs may, but are not required, to stop at another emergency scene."
> http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/emergency_services/ambulance_stopping_advisory_20081001.pdf



roger.  I was talking about a duty to rescue when off duty.

micsaver's got it right...except that the only law I've ever seen is the one i posted...which only covers when a crime is being committed.  common decency says call even if it's not required though.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 24, 2008)

micsaver said:


> there is no "duty to rescue" act in MA that requires someone to "rescue" another person. Your only duty as joe shmoe on the street if you see someone that needs help or "rescue" is to call 911.
> 
> the law says that you don't need to put yourself in harms way ie run into traffic. If you are the only person around and don't call for help, then there are issues. You could be fined, sued in civil court or if it was a criminal situation be charged with anything ranging from neglect to accessory after the fact (obviously depending on the circumstances).
> 
> Bottom line, even if you think someone else could have called it in...just pick up a phone and call 911. Then you did your duty.



here is one MA law that describes how you would have a "duty to act" in a criminal situation where there is abuse of another person...in this case a child. There are also elder abuse laws.
        Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act; ----Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

Being sued in a civil court is also possible with charges such as wrongful death, Negligence and so on...

Basic point: While off duty perform within your certification or at the "first responder" level. If you don't want to get too involved because of scene safty issues at least call police/ambulance. Making that phone call (when off duty) I would argue is the most important step in helping another person in need. .... and covering your arse


----------



## micsaver (Oct 24, 2008)

Negligence is the “commission of a civil wrong, a tort, that accidentally causes injury to somebody by reason of failure to perform an expected duty with the care that a reasonably prudent person would use with regard to the safety of other in a particular circumstance.”


----------



## reaper (Oct 24, 2008)

When it comes to child or elder abuse, it is not a "Duty to act", more of a "duty to report"!


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 24, 2008)

Mandated reported is a completely different thread.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 24, 2008)

you cant compare a properly satffed ambulance with a private vehicle.

in the truck, we have to stop and render aid call in the troops etc.

in my pov, i have *zero* legal requimrment to do anything but call 911 and go about my business.

off duty, im open to exceedingly expensive lawsuits. on duty, as long as im not negligent, im safe.

i look at it from a big picture standpoint(n.b. dont read the following as i think one basic emt can save the world). if i lose my ticket helping one person while in not on duty, have no duty to act and being imporperly equipped, i can no longer help those people i may be dispatched to help while i am on duty, with a duty to act and properly equipped. 

now, in ma, if i step out of the scene(as i have done), somebody else with a brandy new ticket will step right in, so my theory loses somethign right there. but its a big picture theory. just roll with it.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 25, 2008)

*KEVD good one, but here's the ethical point...*

If you are sure and correct that your actions will not make things worse, are you morally and ethically obligated to act? All that would happen is a ding to your karma if you fail to act, but there are some circumstances where you need to stand up and do the right thing then stand like a donkey in the rain and take it when the afteractions start to fall on you. Maybe jail time. Would we take jail time to save a life? (Getting cold dark and windy out here)h34r:.
(Conversely to my converse, when you sense you are out there hanging, there's a reason others aren't there with you, and the reason might be that you are *wrong*).
In short, we gotta do what's right.


----------



## Hastings (Oct 26, 2008)

mycrofft said:


> If you are sure and correct that your actions will not make things worse, are you morally and ethically obligated to act?




No. Not at all. You are morally obligated to contact those that CAN safely act. Nothing more.



mycrofft said:


> All that would happen is a ding to your karma if you fail to act, but there are some circumstances where you need to stand up and do the right thing then stand like a donkey in the rain and take it when the afteractions start to fall on you.




First, no. You get a ding to your karma if you act (or don't act) with bad intentions. This is not refusing to act in to hurt someone else. And thus, there is no karma cost.

And no. As an EMT, you should never rush blindly into a situation just to let the consequences 'happen' later on.



mycrofft said:


> Maybe jail time. Would we take jail time to save a life? (Getting cold dark and windy out here)h34r:.




Never, no. I would never go to jail for saving another person, no matter who that person is or what the circumstance is. Again, let's think of it in the most practical terms, as was brought up above. One life and then an inability to save others, or let one die and save others during a lengthy career following? I choose the last. I will certainly let someone die over sacrificing my ability to treat others in the future.



mycrofft said:


> In short, we gotta do what's right.



What is right is to use common sense and not let such silly emotions ruin our careers.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 27, 2008)

reaper said:


> When it comes to child or elder abuse, it is not a "Duty to act", more of a "duty to report"!



I new someone would pull the wording apart on that. MA actually calls it "duty to act" within the actual law that was quoted...directly copied & pasted from the MA General Laws. "Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act;"  So I guess they are thinking it is a duty to act, as in, report it! 
I love how we all get so nit picky ~


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 27, 2008)

micsaver said:


> I new someone would pull the wording apart on that. MA actually calls it "duty to act" within the actual law that was quoted...directly copied & pasted from the MA General Laws. "Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act;" So I guess they are thinking it is a duty to act, as in, report it!
> *I love how we all get so nit picky* ~


 
No, it is sad that EMS programs and the states have not done a better job of keeping members of the EMS community better informed.

All 50 states have "duty to report" laws on the books when it comes to child abuse. Healthcare workers are definitely included as are governmental employees and many others. There are other issues that also include a duty to report. Florida has mandated certain CEUs courses for license renewal through the years, and still does, to keep people in EMS/healthcare professionals more informed about state legislation that directly affects them. 

There are also laws on the books in many states concerning the obligations of citizens to report a violent crime. That stems from some very horrific acts of violence against a person that was witnessed by many but no one provided witness or assistance in any way including the calling of 911. 

Since Halloween is coming up and that is the anniversary of very tragic event in Florida, here's the article again. The difference is this is *on duty but the same rules for personal safety apply.*

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080103/OPINION/801030605/
Lingering Halloween nightmare
Published: Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 2:24 a.m. 
Last Modified: Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.



> The decisions made by Manatee County paramedics at a retention pond Halloween night remain the subject of intense public debate two months later. The reasons behind those decisions should be the subject of intense scrutiny -- and action -- by public officials in the months ahead.


 


> As the Herald-Tribune's Anthony Cormier recounted in an article published Monday, Schoolfield had drowned by the time the first rescue worker -- a paramedic -- arrived. But Thomas was still struggling in the water.
> 
> The paramedic didn't jump in to try to rescue him, and neither did members of the ambulance crew who arrived next. Finally, two firefighters -- who reached the scene about four minutes after the 911 call -- jumped in but, by then, were unable to find the man.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 27, 2008)

micsaver said:


> here is one MA law that describes how you would have a "duty to act" in a criminal situation where there is abuse of another person...in this case a child. There are also elder abuse laws.
> Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act; ----Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.



Some of us are talking about "On duty" requirements, some are talking about "off duty" requirements. MA laws use the wording "duty to act" and "duty to report" seemingly interchangeably.  Below is a link to all 50 states information about "duty to REPORT" laws.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ws&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=us&client=firefox-a

MA General laws can be found at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/


----------



## reaper (Oct 27, 2008)

"Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act; ----Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years."

Yes, "reasonable steps" are reporting it!  

No states require you to take physical actions, whether "on duty" or "off duty. You cannot be required to place yourself in harms way.

You are required to report it to the proper authorities. Nothing more.


----------



## micsaver (Oct 27, 2008)

reaper said:


> "Yes, "reasonable steps" are reporting it!
> 
> No states require you to take physical actions, whether "on duty" or "off duty. You cannot be required to place yourself in harms way.
> 
> You are required to report it to the proper authorities. Nothing more.



BINGO!!!! We have a winner


----------

