Hacker News Reader

Comment by pestatije | Hacker News Reader

whats the liability if you dont?

In the US, you don't have to do anything. If they are not responsive without a pulse you can legally administer CPR with the "good Samaritan" laws. However it's extremely unlikely to actually work in the best of conditions. We were taught as EMTs that it's really for the bystanders to have something to do. Unless there's an AED, it almost never works, but hey you may as well try.

If it works 10% of the time, that's unquestionably worth it. What's the cost, sore arms?

For me, the cost was a lot of emotional trauma at my own failure, and exposure to the victim's vomit.

That's a high enough cost to let someone die?

Have you performed a CPR since you judge others?

No, but it's a lot higher cost than some sore arms.

I am a volunteer EMT, so it's worth it for me. But I also understand it's very likely that even if you return the patient to spontaneous circulation, they might still not live or might have serious issues like brain damage. Cardiac arrest is often caused by something else.

Also it's not just sore arms, CPR on an elderly patient will often crack ribs which is pretty upsetting. A 9/10 chance you'll feel like you killed a person by crushing their chest is pretty high.

Mouth to mouth is really gross and I wouldn't do it to someone with vomit all over them. Without a suction device it's not effective anyway.

I do think everyone should have to take CPR+AED in high school and college, it's a great skill to have and shares the burden of basic life support around the community. But I totally understand why someone wouldn't want to perform it.

> CPR on an elderly patient ...

A nurse advised me, regarding advanced directives for an elderly person, of the same. It sounds awful.

My concern would be the risk of going into cardiac arrest while performing chest compressions, because the universe has a sick sense of humor.

You probably have a liability to call 911 if you are able to. You're never liable for providing untrained medial assistance but if you're a medical professional that might change.

Legally or morally?

legally, in Australia

I don't know of anywhere in the world where common law requires you to save someone in peril as a civilian

If a toddler falls in to a fountain, you can just walk away?

If it's not your toddler and not your fountain, sure.

It might even be the smart move. depending on the good Samaritan protections in your jurisdiction, you might be open to liability if you try to help.

Maybe true for common law, but definitely not everywhere. For example in Polish penal code: "Art. 162. §1. Anyone who does not provide assistance to a person in a situation threatening a direct danger of loss of life or serious damage to health, when he could provide it without exposing himself or another person to the danger of loss of life or serious damage to health, shall be subject to a penalty of imprisonment for up to 3 years."

It's obvious that this isn't universally true from a legal perspective, and certainly not universal from a personal perspective.

Now, you, personally - if you were watching a toddler obviously drown in a fountain, would you walk away?

I would help, but I am generally sensitive to the legal penalties around these things.

California has decent good Samaritan laws to protect people trying to help from civil liability, and some narrow situational protections from criminal liability.

That's monster-ish.

Agreed, but not criminal in most US states, nor bearing civil liability.

>In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby.

https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/good-samaritan/

This is actually known as the Drowning Child problem, and its most important implication is that any billionaire is "extremely evil."

The parent comment would still be correct though, and billionaires are just filling a power vacuum, nothing wrong about that. I genuinely believe U.S. is also just filling the power vacuum & mostly has done nothing wrong, similar to other superpowers. There's nothing inherently wrong about letting the child drown unless you are the child & can protest about your own drowning, and there's nothing wrong with filling the power vacuum, because the universe has determined that someone ought to do it sooner or later. And we cannot do anything about this.

I define problem/issue/similar words in the following way: a thing that, if deemed existent by me, is also my own fault & realistically fixable by my self.

You are talking about peter singers drowning problem, which is a pretty separate set of concerns.

I was highlighting systemic disincentives that punish potential help.

For example, About 15 years ago restaurants stopped feeding the hungry and poor because they could be sued, and locking up their dumpsters due to liability.

i know for a fact you cannot legally drive away if you witness a car accident (in some european countries)

But is that about requiring you to give medical assistance, or just a statement to the police?

There is no common law duty to rescue. If you do nothing, you'll be fine legally but I don't know how you'll sleep at night.

In NSW, the Civil Liability Act 2002 provides protections for good samaritans assisting in good faith. Other states and territories have similar legislation.

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla20021...

Like Seinfeld?

Thankfully the episode's interpretation of a Good Samaritan Law is completely wrong, at least in many (most?) US states. They protect citizens acting in good faith to help somebody, not like it was interpreted in the episode to require somebody to help.

Not completely wrong. There are duty to rescue or duty to report laws, and they too are very commonly referred to as Good Samaritan laws even if that more commonly refers to a different concept of liability.

https://www2.law.ucla.edu/Volokh/rescue.htm

Duty to report are on the books, including in Massachusetts (ch 268 §40), requiring bystanders to report crimes, but not necessarily render aid. Duty to report laws are rarely enforced, which is what makes the Seinfeld setup more ironic. Although MA has one of the broadest duty to report laws (covering armed robbery and manslaughter in addition to sexual assault), the max penalty is a $2500 fine, but other states have jail time penalties. Duty to rescue is most always only for special relationships, such as parent/guardian/child, spouse, employer/employee, passenger, not random bystanders.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/in-which-sta...

It's been drilled into my head as an American that I should never help anyone. Too much risk.

Is it really? If I help someone am I really risking being sued?

No: You are protected by a good samaritan law of some kind in all 50 states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#United_Stat...

Certainly we, all of us, may be sued at any time for anything but there is specific protection codified into law for this particular scenario.

If somebody needs help you should help them.

Good to know. I'd hate to get in trouble for merely helping out. I don't know how to do CPR but I'd definitely attempt to pull someone out from a burning car for example. If I were training for CPR this part would likely be covered in the training.

Here's the rub tho, you can still end up getting sued if for example you acted with gross negligence. An example I'd use here is you move somebody from a car wreck and injure them even further rather than waiting a few minutes for emergency response.

This is entirely going to depend on the victim and their lawyer, but they can absolutely make your life a living pain especially if they find out you have money and might just settle to make it go away.

That's why there are good Samaritan laws.

   No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency 
   medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for 
   any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.

https://recreation-law.com/2014/05/28/good-samaritan-laws-by...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com