Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Trevor Crowther
I have heard a couple of reports recently where a first aider, having called the emergency services, has been told by the attending paramedics that they HAVE A DUTY to attempt to resuscitate the "patient".
It has been reportedly said that this applies to any person trained in resuscitation techniques and in circumstances that go wider than just those that are work related i.e. attending to members of the public.
Is this just hearsay?
Is there some foundation to the claim?
The only basis that I can think of is one that may be related to a common law duty, is this the case?
Any help would be welcome; indeed evidence or reports of a similar nature would be helpful in investigating this issue.
Regards
Trevor Crowther
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Trevor,
There is no general common law duty to help another person. However, there is a duty to exercise reasonable skil and care if you do decide to help.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chrisopher Gilbert
As a first aider I comment as follows.
CPR forms the core of first aid training.
If first aiders have a duty then it is an ethical
duty. Having accepted the training and role as
first aider I would feel bound to offer support
within the limits of my training so long as I was
not putting myself or others into danger by
attempting to carry out first aid.
Finaly - ethics do not change at the door to the
workplace. My first aid skills are also available
in the community for which I thank my employer
for providing me with such useful training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Christopher, whilst I applaud your ethics, they are not transferrable to others. Many people are perfectly willing to help in any circumstance, but a lot more are not - and in my opinion have no obligation to. First aid is voluntary and must remain as such.
Any paramedic saying otherwise should be corrected either at the time or through the ambulance authority in my opinion... we have enough trouble trying to recruit first aiders without adding non-existent obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By tony thompson
First Aid..........
It is a Legal requirement to have a 1st Aider 'On Site'
It is a Legal requirement for the "1st Aider" to give 1st Aid.
That is why you trained for it....If you cannot give resuss, then give up your 1st Aid. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Donnelly
New Legislation as from April
Changes 2 CPR and now it is the first aiders discretion as to whether they give ventilations.
If they are not comfortable they may just give chest compressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Tony,
There is no legal duty to give first aid! However, if you are trained, accept payment then you would possibly be in breach of your contract of employment if you refused to so within the terms of your employment.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Tony,
Could you please point me to the legal duty to provide first aid? There is no general legal duty to give first aid!
However, if you accept training from your employer and accept payment then you could possibly be held to be in breach of your contract of employment if you refused to give first aid at your place of work as you have entered into a contract with your employer for you to provide first aid and have received consideration for doing so within the terms of your employment.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Absolutley correct Adrian!
Also, the incoming First Aid variations don't actually impose any duties on First Aiders; and only extend the possible functions by a small margin as well as better addressing the existing functions.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By tony thompson
When you sign up to carry out your 1st Aid course, (with the Red Cross, anyway) it is with the understanding that you will "Administer the requirement of 1st aid, wherever possible, to save a life" if you feel squeamish about going 'mouth to mouth' on another person, because 'they don't smell good' then you should pass the whole resposibility over to someone else.............I'm not saying "you're knicked" if you don't save that life, but if you don't try, then you may as well pull the trigger.........no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
I have a face shield (little thing with a sheet of plastic and a one way valve for mouth to mouth). Prevents infection and oxygen can be connected to it. Lives in the car and my backpack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Trevor Crowther
Can I express my thanks to all those who responded to my query. All were valuable though some were on the periphery of the original question.
Regards
Trevor Crowther
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Christopher... You proudly state, "My first aid skills are also available in the community for which I thank my employer for providing me with such useful training."
Do you think your employer would stand in the line of fire and pay-up the compensation awarded to the dead person’s relatives should you inadvertently kill them whilst attempting First Aid? (In a Vicarious way) I think not! First Aid at Work is just that – training received to deal with situations at work – if properly assessed it will be specialist to your organisation and tasks.
If memory serves me right, only Doctors and Nurses (some of which are not First Aid trained I might add) have a duty of care to assist a person requiring medical aid.
You are on a road to nowhere offering your services to ‘Joe Public’ based on the training you’ve had at work! I’m not saying walk on by and let someone suffer. If you have the skills and confidence to preserve life until the Professionals get there by all means do that, whilst I don’t doubt your commitment to offering help, if I were you, I’d think long and hard before using your work based training to this degree.
Kind regards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I cannot concur with the comments of the previous thread. It is a noble and unselfish act to help others when they are in need. The notion that a person may be liable if something goes wrong is nonsense. I have never heard of any peron being prosecuted for trying to help someone. Indeed, we all have a duty of care to others and that includes providing first aid if you are proficient.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
Trevor
Tell the paramedics to get there faster.
If the i.p has air in their lungs would they expect you to open up the windpipe and put insert a biro in to relieve the air in the lungs.
First aiders are required to do the best they can, its a voluntary job which they can resign from at any time, we all should be grateful that someone volunteers for this task. Pressuring them by they will be prosecuted or sued or other things is just rubbish.
Can anyone from any first aid training organisation out there name a first aider that has been prosecuted for the way they have carried out their voluntary job? Or name a successful civil case directly against a first aider who has not carried out there voluntary job well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Raymond, it might be a noble and unselfish act, but if you check with your company’s Insurers, I'm sure they'll clear up the debate on whether your employer would be vicariously liable for your actions. Don't forget to mention in the scenario the First Aid is given outside of the work arena, to a person not in their employment and based on the training they have paid for you to attend. I still uphold my previous comments that a person should only attempt First Aid if you are 100% confident that you can preserve life until the Professionals arrive. Liken this to a Risk Assessment; in reducing one risk, make sure another isn’t created!
Sadly our culture attracts claims from those out to make some quick coinage, often as a result of the actions of a person with good intentions (like I suspect your good self?).
Hope this works out ok for all concerned.
Kind regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Saracen11
You have articulated your point very well...but I still disagree with your comments. Volunteers only have a civil law 'duty of care' to other people.
For a person to be charged with a criminal offence in the scenario you have described is positively nil.
In a civil case where 'on the balance of probabilities' that the defendant was negligent the claimant must prove that:
1 the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant;
2 the defendant was in breach of that duty of care;
3 the claimant suffered harm as a result of the breach of duty of care and;
4 the harm suffered by the claimant was forseeable.
I think it is quite obvious from the above that any civil claim is most unlikely if not impossible. I rest my case.
Nevertheless, thank you for your kind assumptions and I would sincerely hope that I would help any fellow human being with first aid - worker or otherwise.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
My point was that the duty of care only extends to persons employed and those that may be affected by the undertaking.
I think we both hope that our points/opinions will never come back to haunt us?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
A 'duty of care' applies to everyone, whether they are in employment or not has no bearing on the matter.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Adrian, should have stuck to Environmental Health mate, you sound tooooo much like Judge John Deed me old matey.
We need to meet up for some beer, been to long, chew the fat pull, swing the lamp oops sorry! should be 'pull up a sandbag' etc, where you located nowadays!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Picking up on a point Simon made earlier - new Regulations due in April stating only chest compressions to be given in CPR??? Obviously this was never passed by anyone in the medical profession or dealing with first aid resuscitation.
There is NO POINT in circulating de-oxygenated blood - if you aren't adding oxygen at sufficient intervals, you may as well not bother.
Simon - can you clarify on where you heard or saw that information please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dave,
I agree!
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clairey O follow this link and you can see the full decisions behind the changes in cpr. its actually quite sensible. http://www.erc.edu/The people involved in implementing the changes are involved in resuscitation. Read the other side of the argument before casting aspersions about compression only cpr !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Al Penman The changes have been approved by the Resuscitation Council (UK) website at www.resus.org.uk this also gives the reasons for the changes. Regards Al
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Saracen
I'm with Raymond and have to disagree with you. Just because the employer paid for a first aid course does NOT mean that the holder of the certificate should not use those skills in the wider community.
If we were only to practice learned skills for the benefit of those who paid for us to acquire them, what would happen to our education system?
A first aid at work certificate is a recognised standard and is therefore transferrable. It is delivered by training organisations which include the Red Cross and St. John's who actively encourage the holders to be prepared to use their skills anytime, any place to help save a life.
To suggest that an employer could in any way be held liable for an employee undertaking first aid at the scene of a road accident or whatever is as much nonsense as it would be to blame my Mum & Dad, who paid for my driving lessons, if I were to be the cause of such an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Thanks for the link to the ERC - but it still doesn't say you can only do compressions - it has only incresaed the ratio from 15:2 to 30:2. You still need to do the ventilations.
I'll be checking with my paramedic trainers on the changes noted here though, although my FPOS refresher is imminent as is my FA@W refresher, so I can raise this then.
Perhaps we have answered the first question!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
My apologies - I should have read the UK guidelines before responding.
It DOES mention compression only CPR, but only for the first few minutes, and only for lay people. If a first aider cannot or will not do ventillations, they should not be allowed to do First Aid.
Bottom line is - if the AED is not available immediately OR the emergency services have not arrived within 3 minutes, you must do full CPR if you want to maintain a high chance of the casualty surviving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
The point I am trying to get across is that it is unlikely any Employers Insurers will stump up the claim for any litigation following a bungled attempt to preserve life based on the training they have paid for/provided. I acknowledge this isn’t really the issue here, but it’s an opinion I thought worthy of a mention. (I’m losing the will to live with this one…) John, I sort of agree with you in theory.
Raymond, you correctly state the obvious criteria for a civil action to be successful.
Kind regards as usual
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
I think most people wouldn't expect employers liability insurance to cover them when resuscitating someone when not at work. Others have simply said that wouldn't stop them attempting to save a life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Hay
I had a conversation with a very senior member of staff from the British Red Cross a couple of years ago when he stated two things. Firstly - if someone isn't breathing and their heart isn't beating, their day is NOT going to get a lot worse. They are theoretically dead, if we can bring them back by whatever means we have performed a minor miracle - no one will sue (or be successful in suing) if you give the wrong number of compressions etc. Secondly - as long as a first aider follows the guidance given to them during training (no medication etc), what are they going to be sued for? Committing a humanitarian act - I don't think so. Once again the fear of litigation strikes - to the best of my knowledge there has not been a single case where a first aider giving assistance in line with their training has been successfully sued (I stand to be corrected on this.) If you talk to the BRC or St.Johns about this they would advocate everyone being given some basic training - if one life is saved, surely a good thing!
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher Simon stated in an earlier posting:New Legislation as from April Changes 2 CPR and now it is the first aiders discretion as to whether they give ventilations. If they are not comfortable they may just give chest compressions." Others have commented rightly on the inaccuracies of this statement. As a First Aider you must check the precise detail with your trainer/advisor, however the essence of the new guidance which can be read at http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/bls.pdf is - The international rescusitation advice recognised that by moving into the compressions first, continuing to circulate what oxygen was in the system (they recognised that there was sufficient)and then the ventilations, would provide the casualty with a better outcome. They also comment on not wasting time on precise positioning of hands or check certain pulse points. They then indicated that where an aider came upon someone that would prove of concern to give ventilations (if there was not a mouthpiece) then better to continue with compresssions initially. But read the above link details. As a technical aside the total overall comressions v ventilations is 30:2 Bill Fisher (Moderator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.