reaper
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
The rules changed
- Thread starter micsaver
- Start date
California? Every county is different.
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
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
"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.
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
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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?
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?
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
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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.
especially after the steer loader I posted above.
Many techs are better qualified than I am, but by law they are stuck.
bstone
Forum Deputy Chief
- 2,066
- 1
- 0
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
"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
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
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
OP
OP
micsaver
Forum Crew Member
- 65
- 0
- 0
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.
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.
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
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.
OP
OP
micsaver
Forum Crew Member
- 65
- 0
- 0
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
OP
OP
micsaver
Forum Crew Member
- 65
- 0
- 0
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
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
When it comes to child or elder abuse, it is not a "Duty to act", more of a "duty to report"!
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Mandated reported is a completely different thread.
KEVD18
Forum Deputy Chief
- 2,165
- 10
- 0
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.
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
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. Not at all. You are morally obligated to contact those that CAN safely act. Nothing more.
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.
Maybe jail time. Would we take jail time to save a life? (Getting cold dark and windy out here)
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.
What is right is to use common sense and not let such silly emotions ruin our careers.
OP
OP
micsaver
Forum Crew Member
- 65
- 0
- 0
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
~