Every medical student hears horror stories where a doctor acting as a good samaritan in less than optimal conditions results in the person who was helped suing them afterwards.
Source (only in German): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erste_Hilfe#Rechtliche_Situati...
From a actual lawsuit: Someone without the proper training started an IV which later caused sepsis and death. Since the patient was admitted to an hospital it was not clear if an improply placed IV caused the death or an improper care in the hospital.
In nearly all the situations the staff in the building told the sick people outside to call 911 to get transported inside two feet inside the door.
The hospital workers and by that I mean nurses and doctors were unwilling to help even though the people outside were very ill.
I ask because I once walked my relative into an ER and they were attended to, no problem.
I can understand some concerns of staff but to flat out refuse seems to go against the ethics of being in the medical trade.
I also suspect it's government bureaucracy and union rules, paperwork trumps life I guess.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hospital-er-call-help-1.368630...
Even if you are a paramedic with the local fire department, in uniform and walking down the street, unless you are on-duty, you do not have to act. You'd be a massive dick if you didn't, but there is no legal requirement.
Therefore no normal law should be able to break your cover. As long as there's no doubt on your good intentions.
"Despite the fact that no-one in the UK has been sued for providing first aid, it is a common fear that we’re regularly asked about." - Joe Mulligan, British Red Cross, 2015
"Although potential legal liability arising from good samaritan acts is something about which we're regularly asked by healthcare professionals, in practice we have never encountered a UK doctor, paramedic, nurse or other healthcare professional being sued after providing this kind of emergency assistance." - Shoosmiths, a major UK law firm that I have heard described as "Ambulance Chasers".
It seems to be common in the US for people to get sued for helping. Not so much in the UK, and following the 2105 SARAH act, which creates additional protections for such people, now even less likely.
They replied that they would of course pay if she would reimburse them for the cost of the flight - enclosing a bill for £10,000. Answer came there none.
In this day and age, if we cannot find any UK instance of someone being sued for providing first aid, I think we can label it "urban myth". Maybe some obsessive HN reader will find one for us :)
> The most important thing to remember is that to date, no one in the UK has ever been sued for administering life-saving First Aid.
But also:
http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_s...
> There have been some cases in the UK where a claim has been brought against a ‘rescuer’, although there have been no reported cases in court where a casualty has successfully sued someone.
> • Out-of-court settlements are more common and go unreported, so it is likely that some claims against a rescuer have been ‘successful’, but these will have gone unreported.
> • It should be noted that even if a first aider is successful in defending himself against a claim, it is unlikely that he will be able to recover the full legal costs in defending himself. In civil litigation, it is unusual for a court to award the successful party more than 80% of their costs and it’s possible that an accusation can cost tens of thousands of pounds to defend.
> • In some instances it can be less expensive to settle a claim out of court than to defend it. It is not uncommon for insurers to settle claims even when the defendant was innocent, as this is the least expensive and least risky option.
For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her.
One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway)
Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
There are also cities that charge fees for sending fire trucks to vehicle fires and accidents if non-residents are involved.
http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics...