Poll question

[Arabian180]

Re: Poll question

I put my knee into a few peoples groins over the course of that summer.

Sig line material right there




180.

 

[jaxnjil]

Re: Poll question

I would not move them. The risk of fire is not as great as you all think. The risk of a neck injury to the driver is more likely.

i think youj got it right too

 

[dingbat]

Re: Poll question

Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.[8] In the absence of imminent peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If a 'good Samaritan' elects to 'rescue' the victim from the wreckage, causing paralysis or some other injury, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent peril and hold the actions of the rescuer as 'reckless' and unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

 

[strokeoluck]

Re: Poll question

Much like in that movie "The Gaurdian", it was taught to us to punch, kick, do whatever you have to do to the victim if it helps enable you to protect your life, and save theirs.

I put my knee into a few peoples groins over the course of that summer.

Note to self: make sure I'm never saved by JustJason.

 

[PW2]

Re: Poll question

Don't know, but I'd make sure I put out my cigarette while checking on them.

 

[wajajaja02]

Re: Poll question

unconscious inadequate breathing, petroleum pneumonia and static ignition of the gas justify removal of the accident victim from the vehicle in a spinal axial direction.

 

[sportsmanphil]

Re: Poll question

Ok, this is what brought this on.

I teach a weight lifting class for older kids at a local YMCA. As a part of this I have to be certified in a few things. I had to redo my CPR, and had to suffer through 11 hours of CPR,AED,oxygen and first aid.

I'm not going into huge detail as it would be pages long, so I will shorten this as much as possible.

You are supposed to evaluate the situation, making sure that you will not be putting yourself in danger for a downed person. However if you are already a part of the dangerous situation you can act to get the patient out of the situation. Example is a house fire. If you are in the house fire and find a downed person, go a head and drag them to safety, but do not run into a burning house to save a person (kind of a personal decision but that's what was taught)

Situations like these were discussed which included good samaritan laws and potential liability.

Myself being a licensed insurance adjuster, I'm all about liability discussions.

We were instructed to NEVER move or remove a victim of an auto accident. However later in our class we were given instructions on how to remove a non responsive victim. The example was a house struck by a tornado. A person is down, non responsive and there is a potential for the roof to collapse; remove the victim by pulling in line with the spine.

So I bring up a situation, the car accident with fuel.

As a part of the training, if the victim is a minor or a nonresponding adult, it is considered 'expressed consent' giving you permission to assist with in your training.

The instructor said NO, that moving could cause injury to a damaged spine and could further injure the victim. That said I would/could be liable.

My argument for that is, prove my moving caused the damage vs. the original auto accident. Also I did not cause the original injury, so where am I liable? (this is a side note and not really a part of the poll)

My second argument (applies to the poll) is the difference between pulling a person from the house due to a potential roof collapse is fine, but pulling a person from a damaged car with leaking fuel is not.

I see the fuel (potential disaster) no different from a falling roof/structure (potential disaster)

Who's to say I don't further injure the person in the collapsed house, yet that is fine for me to do so.

So the way I see it, its a personal decision to inject yourself in the situation. I have placed this situation on 3 forums and only 6 have voted they would leave the person in the car, 42 voted that they would move the person.

 

[JustJason]

Re: Poll question

I dunno.... If i was out cold, And my car was leaking gas. I'd want somebody to pull me out. Broken neck or not.
In fact... in this day and age with HIV/AIDS, HEP C and all the other crap, anybody whose willing to pull your bloody stranger arse out of a damaged car is a damm saint in my mind.
Maybe they should all make us put "consent stickers" on our liscence plates. Green for save me or Red for leave me for a doctor. Or just make the lettering 2 different colors.
See how many people when asked before hand start driving around with red plates.

 

[FBPirate95]

Re: Poll question

I voted yes. The rule of thumb that we were taught in first aid. In a scenario like the one you described if the person is in immediate danger move the victim to safety and then start administering first aid. The victim was in immediate danger from the gas and possible fire. Its an assessment you have to make on scene as every scene is different.

This is what I have been taught in my Emergency Rescue Training as well. Unless the person has a written and signed DNR order, or has verbally expressed they do not want assistance with witness around, you are free to act accordingly to save "life over limb". Where you get in to trouble is when somebody has expressed they do not want any help, and you help them thinking you're doing the right thing. Then they have the opportunity to sue you for anything that happens from your efforts.

Example from class....an EMT arrives on a scene and asks someone who doesn't look like they are feeling too well if they can assist them. The person says NO. The EMT cannot do anything. However if the person goes into a heart attack, and is unconcious or unable to respond, the EMT can then treat as neccessary. The point is that if the patient can express they're wishes, you have to abide. If they cannot answer "do you need assistance?" you may assist as long as you're are doing what you believe is in the best interest of their life.