What's wrong with society?

[NickS VR4]

What's wrong with society? Just heard on the radio a story from a retired CCT/PJ. Story goes like this... He comes across a car accident where there is a man driver, female in passenger seat, and child in her lap. Child is dead, mother is walking wounded, father has crushed chest, punctured lung, and crushed throat. This CCT/PJ saved his life with a tracheotomy and chest decompression. Later this man gets an infection at the trach site and sues the CCT/PJ. That retiree had to pay $80,000 in lawyer fees just to defend himself. A soldier in combat would owe this man his life, a civilian would sue, WTF?

Now I know that most aren't like this, but for the few that are, you are the scum of society.

Copied from my rant on Facebook.

[2fnloud]

Agreed!!!

Maybe, CCT/PJ should counter suit to recover said 80K in legal fees.

[93STLTH]

Or, he could sue for the trauma of having to see a child killed because of gross negligence.

I thought there were laws created to prevent this type of suit? I remember something like a "good samaritan" law, where a person couldn't sue someone for damages when the intent was to save that persons life.

[NickS VR4]

Or, he could sue for the trauma of having to see a child killed because of gross negligence.

I thought there were laws created to prevent this type of suit? I remember something like a "good samaritan" law, where a person couldn't sue someone for damages when the intent was to save that persons life.

Guy on radio said the good samaritan law did not apply because he was a licensed paramedic.

[rlacasse1]

Crap like that pisses me off. I don't understand how someone could really be that much of a POS.

[MeTarzan]

This is another reason as why I hate the human race, expecially all the cry baby pos that look a gift horse in the mouth...MuthaFuka you'd be DEAD if he didnt save your life I think you should be KISSING HIS ASS not sueing it.

[stealthee]

Guy on radio said the good samaritan law did not apply because he was a licensed paramedic.

Licensed paramedic or not, if he stopped under his own volition and was not on duty he should qualify under the law.

[IPD]

i have no hope for humanity.

[NickS VR4]

Licensed paramedic or not, if he stopped under his own volition and was not on duty he should qualify under the law.

My guess is this... In the military, while deployed, there is no mal-intent, You do what you can with what you have. (Plus you cant sue).

As a paramedic, he "should know better" than to do this procedure without being sterile. He probably wasn't properly equipped so therefor considered working outside his scope of practice.

Problem is that in the military mindset saving a life comes before all, and you want to do everything you can to save a persons life. This works in an environment where you cant be sued.

For example as a medic stateside, I had many different scopes based on the situation.
In a hospital, I have permission to do X skills.
In an ambulance I can do another X skills. If the patient is military I can do that X + Y skills
Deployed I could do just about anything I have been trained to do, whatever it takes to save a life.

I'm sure he knew that he was working outside his scope in that instance, but he placed life above all and it bit him in the ass by the guy he put it on the line for.

Because he worked outside his scope given the circumstances, that is why I do not think the Good Samaritan law applied.

[NickS VR4]

I can understand the paramedic board revoking his license, even though i'd object to that as well. I cannot accept the man he saved being the one that sued him. The CCT/PJ said that the guy had caught wind that the CCT/PJ had a nice amount of money, and was talked into suing him by a lawyer.

[MeTarzan]

the guy had caught wind that the CCT/PJ had a nice amount of money, and was talked into suing him by a lawyer.
so that makes the guy an even bigger scumbag...when there was actual ethics the guy would have owed the CCT/PJ his life and been indebted to him for saving his but to have some bottom feeding lawyer talk him into suing him is really F'd

[AgentOblivious]

I am so glad I didn't have to fight it out in court after my accident. For those who don't know, last year I ended up hitting a pedestrian after him and a group he was with decided to run in front of me while I was driving home from school.

This kinda reminds me of the situation I had because although I was cleared by police (who found, after CSI-ing the whole street, that there was nothing I could have done to prevent the accident), I still ended up getting a letter from a law firm saying the guy intended to sue...supposedly a social worker talked the guy into contacting a lawyer at the hospital...I think that lasted until the law firm looked into the facts of the case...haven't heard anything since, and they've got less than a year left to launch a suit.

All it takes is an over aggressive third party to step in to get the ball rolling. Its too bad.

[green-lantern]

What's wrong with society? Just heard on the radio a story from a retired CCT/PJ. Story goes like this... He comes across a car accident where there is a man driver, female in passenger seat, and child in her lap. Child is dead, mother is walking wounded, father has crushed chest, punctured lung, and crushed throat. This CCT/PJ saved his life with a tracheotomy and chest decompression. Later this man gets an infection at the trach site and sues the CCT/PJ. That retiree had to pay $80,000 in lawyer fees just to defend himself. A soldier in combat would owe this man his life, a civilian would sue, WTF?

Now I know that most aren't like this, but for the few that are, you are the scum of society.

Copied from my rant on Facebook.

Americans are so self centered theses days. People breed these brats like rabbits. I hate to say it but 50% of the people in this country don't deserve to be here.

[Granny]

My husband just took a CPR class and you can't touch them unless they give you permission.
Sad but true.

[NickS VR4]

My husband just took a CPR class and you can't touch them unless they give you permission.
Sad but true.

Well there is implied consent, but that doesn't occur until they are unconscious. The law sucks for medics.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[zelstin]

Guy on radio said the good samaritan law did not apply because he was a licensed paramedic.

Something smells fishy. Good Samaritan Laws are in place to protect professionals more so than an untrained bystander.

[Granny]

I asked him "What if they can't answer?"
He said " Then you can't do anything"
Meaning they can sue you if you try to help them.
Almost makes it pointless to take the class.

[NickS VR4]

I asked him "What if they can't answer?"
He said " Then you can't do anything"
Meaning they can sue you if you try to help them.
Almost makes it pointless to take the class.

Yes and no. If they are waving you off, or do not look like they are asking for your help, than you cant help them until they pass out. If they are choking, you can ask them if they need help, and if they dont signal you away or seem to want you to help, than you are good.

They wont be able to talk if they are really choking, can only signal. But you are only required to call 911... unless you identify yourself as something more than a good samaritan.

[NickS VR4]

Something smells fishy. Good Samaritan Laws are in place to protect professionals more so than an untrained bystander.

Like I said, while this may have been ok with the military, my guess is because he "knows better" than to perform the procedure in a non-sterile manor, or not in the capacity of a paramedic (didnt have the supplies or the medical direction), than he would be out of his scope at that time.

Like if I tried to do a cric airway, needle decompression, or started an IV on my own... I'm not technically allowed to do that, although I was trained in the military.

[Granny]

A signal is consent.
They don't have to verbally say it.

[NickS VR4]

A signal is consent.
They don't have to verbally say it.

Yes. Like I said, if they have a full obstruction, they wont be able to make any noise/be able to speak. Partial obstruction and they will only be able to wheeze, again, not able to speak.

Edit: As an EMT or CPR certified person, you should identify yourself as such, and ask if they need help. That is where the signal comes into play.

[wingnut]

Link to the story?

...smells fishy, maybe theres been an update of epic proportions http://www.samizdata.net/~pdeh/smiley_eyebrows.gif

[NickS VR4]

Was trying to google it now. I heard this on the radio this morning, the guy that got sued was the one that called it in... they were talking about how some lady choked in a McDonalds or something and no one did anything. He called in with his story on why people wont do anything anymore, and its cause of stories like his.

[IPD]

Americans are so self centered theses days. People breed these brats like rabbits. I hate to say it but 50% of the people in this country don't deserve to be here.

if i were in the country, i would include myself in that tally. and since i consider myself to be above average intelligence, i'd say that REALLY says something about the caliber of individuals that comprise the dregs of society.

p.s.
if he's cct/pj, i'm sure all he has to do is provide a name/address and someone somewhere will "disappear" this problem.

[j2k4]

Sorry for the word brick, but:

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3] However, such a duty may arise in two situations:

A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4]
Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Emergency workers (firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. DC that the police have no duty to protect any citizen not in custody, and cannot be sued for their failure to protect.[5]
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[6]
Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.[7]
Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.[8]
Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.
Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.[9]
In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13] Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19] Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]
Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuer need not endanger himself in conducting the rescue.

U.S. exampleIn an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.[23]

In Quebec, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its Charter of Rights: "Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance...Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason."[32] Criminal law in Canada is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so failure to comply with an article of the Charter in Quebec does not constitute a criminal offence unless that by doing so a party also violates the Criminal Code of Canada.

Other provinces follow common law.

In Canadian air law it is mandatory to make yourself and your aircraft available to aid search and rescue efforts if you are in the immediate area a distress signal is received.[citation needed]

Ethical justificationsLegal requirements for a duty to rescue do not pertain in all nations, states, or localities. However, a moral or ethical duty to rescue may exist even where there is no legal duty to rescue. There are a number of potential justifications for such a duty.

One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress.

These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why philosopher Peter Singer suggests that if we saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, we should do so, no matter the damage to our clothing or shoes or how late it might make us for a meeting. Singer goes on to say that we should also attempt to rescue distant strangers, not just nearby children, because globalization has made it possible for us to do so.[33] Such general arguments for a duty to rescue also explain why after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Haitians were digging family members, friends, and perfect strangers out of the rubble with their bare hands and carrying injured persons to whatever medical care was available.[34] They also explain why, while covering that same earthquake, journalist and physician Sanjay Gupta and a number of other MD-journalists began acting as physicians to treat injuries rather than remaining uninvolved in their journalistic roles. Similarly, they justify journalist Anderson Cooper's attempt to shepherd an injured young boy away from some "toughs" nearby in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.[35]

Specific arguments for such a duty to rescue include, but are not limited to:

The Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated. This assumes that all persons would wish to be rescued if they were in distress, and so they should in turn rescue those in distress to the best of their abilities. What counts as distress requiring rescue may, of course, differ from person to person, but being trapped or at risk of drowning are emergent situations which this position assumes all humans would wish to be rescued from.
Utilitarian ethics: utilitarianism posits that those actions are right which best maximize happiness and reduce suffering ("maximize the good").[36] Utilitarian reasoning generally supports acts of rescue which contribute to overall happiness and reduced suffering. Rule utilitarianism would look not just at whether individual acts of rescue maximize the good, but whether certain types of acts do so. It then becomes our duty to perform those types of actions. Generally, having strangers rescue those in distress maximizes good so long as the rescue attempt does not make things worse, so we have a duty to rescue to the best of our ability as long as doing so will not make things worse.
Care Ethics: the ethics of care advise that the essence of morality and right behavior is tending to human relationships. Therefore, virtues (excellent character traits) such as compassion, sympathy, honesty, and fidelity are to be admired and developed.[37] Acting out of compassion and sympathy will often require rescue where someone is in need. Indeed, it would not be compassionate to ignore someone's need, though the way one fulfills that need may vary. In cases of emergency, rescue would be the most compassionate act compared with allowing a person to remain trapped in rubble.
There are also ethical justifications for role-specific or skill-specific duties of rescue such as those described under the discussion of U.S. Common Law, above. Generally, these justifications are rooted in the idea that the best rescues, the most effective rescues, are done by those with special skills. Such persons, when available to rescue, are thus even more required to do so ethically than regular persons who might simply make things worse (for a utilitarian, rescue by a skilled professional in a relevant field would maximize the good even better than rescue by a regular stranger). This particular ethical argument makes sense when considering the ability firefighters to get both themselves and victims safely out of a burning building, or of health care personnel such as physicians, nurses, physician's assistants, and EMTs to provide medical rescue.[38]

These are just some of the many ethical justifications for a duty to rescue, and they may hold true for both regular citizens and skilled professionals even in the absence of legal requirements to render

[Alan92RTTT]

I think the bigger problem is lawyers.

In the legal profession it should be as simple as "you'd be dead if he had not acted you've got no case"

Unfortunately its all about "Lets give it a shot. It won't cost you any money you only have to pay if we win" In which case the lawyer hopes for a settlement without court where he can suck most of the cash up with "fees"

[wingnut]

I think the bigger problem is lawyers.

Agreed...times eleventy-billion!

http://images.zaazu.com/img/thumbsup-thumbs-up-approve-ok-smiley-emoticon-000283-facebook.gif

[j2k4]

Exactly - and those pricks won't even pick up the ball unless they smell "collectability".

[wingnut]

Although...do we blame the yahoos making a living, or the system that allows same ;)

[NickS VR4]

Whats crazy is that in a civil suit, you only need to be 51% sure that they are guilty, unlike criminal which is beyond a doubt. So say OJ wasnt as obvious... found not guilty, yet had to pay damages as if he were. It can be a crazy system some times.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

[IPD]

Although...do we blame the yahoos making a living, or the system that allows same ;)

both. i blame apple more than i blame the patent office though.

[ictponder]

Don't have words...

Teen brothers murder 12yr old girl & stuff her in recycle container (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/23/body-found-may-be-missing-new-jersey-girl-police-say/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29)

[Vantage]

Don't have words...

Teen brothers murder 12yr old girl & stuff her in recycle container (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/23/body-found-may-be-missing-new-jersey-girl-police-say/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29)

I know that girls cousin. A sad story for sure.

[ictponder]

I know that girls cousin. A sad story for sure.

Any idea as to why they did it?

[NickS VR4]

Any idea as to why they did it?

Story I heard was to steal her bike.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[ictponder]

You have got to be fucking kidding me! I swear to God if I could trade places with some of these little kids I would. Killing a 12yr old girl and stuffing her in a recycle bin for a stupid fucking bike, this world needs to get hit by an asteroid the size of Texas and save everyone the trouble.

[wingnut]

...this world needs to get hit by an asteroid the size of Texas and save everyone the trouble.

hey now, a texas sized one would ruin more than the days of just the scumbags...

...a little warning before you launch this thing would be great, although i dunno if it would matter :D

[ictponder]

Meth addict accused in burglary sues 90-year-old homeowner shot in jaw (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29)

[MeTarzan]

Meth addict accused in burglary sues 90-year-old homeowner shot in jaw (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29)

Thats one reason why you shoot to kill so the stupid A-holes cant sue you.

[IPD]

maybe it's a little hard to iron-sight when you're 90. still, i'm scratching my head how someone who literally put a gun to someone else's head and pulled the trigger...is able to seriously sue said individual.