Maybe in the US. In Canada, no one has ever been succesfully sued when rendering aid (ie. Rescue Breathing, CPR); no matter what standards were not upheld. The only thing that would hold up in court is gross negligence and abandonment; which can also be hard to prove.
Rescue breathing when there is no pulse
- Thread starter surlyc
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Maybe in the US. In Canada, no one has ever been succesfully sued when rendering aid (ie. Rescue Breathing, CPR); no matter what standards were not upheld. The only thing that would hold up in court is gross negligence and abandonment; which can also be hard to prove.
joele
Guest
i learned a lot from the exchange of posts...
scott's contribution is more than helpful, coming from a point of view of an EMT volunteer... thanks...
indeed rescue breaths will be useless without pulse...
for it is the heart that directly supplies oxygenated blood to the brain and not the artificial rescue breaths...
however, i do agree that when in doubt, give at least two short bursts of rescue breathing... it also helps checking for airway...
although, i have doubts in giving emergency respiration while in the water... first it delays transfer of the victim... second, it stresses the rescuer, thus could mean possible danger as well to the rescuer... and possible drowning on the part of the victim as the rescuer could accidentally induce intake of water to the victim while giving artificial respiration... you also have to make sure that it is safe for both the victim and the rescuer to administer cpr and ar, and open water isn't a safe place and would only pose more danger to both...
lastly, there are some certification agencies which conduct mfa certification classes that are inadequate and only giving false knowledge and improper skills to the rescue diver trainees who later on become perilous divemasters... i was shocked to have learned that they can even "train" in a day... cpr and ar is a special skill that should be learned carefully and not commercially rushed so as to certifiy rescue divers...
joel
p.s. this message was intended to have been posted last week... however, our server bogged down just when i was about to send this... i hope this time it will be successful...
scott's contribution is more than helpful, coming from a point of view of an EMT volunteer... thanks...
indeed rescue breaths will be useless without pulse...
for it is the heart that directly supplies oxygenated blood to the brain and not the artificial rescue breaths...
however, i do agree that when in doubt, give at least two short bursts of rescue breathing... it also helps checking for airway...
although, i have doubts in giving emergency respiration while in the water... first it delays transfer of the victim... second, it stresses the rescuer, thus could mean possible danger as well to the rescuer... and possible drowning on the part of the victim as the rescuer could accidentally induce intake of water to the victim while giving artificial respiration... you also have to make sure that it is safe for both the victim and the rescuer to administer cpr and ar, and open water isn't a safe place and would only pose more danger to both...
lastly, there are some certification agencies which conduct mfa certification classes that are inadequate and only giving false knowledge and improper skills to the rescue diver trainees who later on become perilous divemasters... i was shocked to have learned that they can even "train" in a day... cpr and ar is a special skill that should be learned carefully and not commercially rushed so as to certifiy rescue divers...
joel
p.s. this message was intended to have been posted last week... however, our server bogged down just when i was about to send this... i hope this time it will be successful...
I've been the first responder 3 times (on land) in the past year or so for victims with cornory events. Done CPR, rescue breathing on all three and all three died.
Moral: If the heart has stopped and you don't have and AED handy, which I now carry, CPR is a stopgap measure in nearly all cases until fire arrives on scene.
Moral: If the heart has stopped and you don't have and AED handy, which I now carry, CPR is a stopgap measure in nearly all cases until fire arrives on scene.
Regardless of what you have available and what you can do, when something like this occur, chance of survival is not very good. If I remember correctly, something like only 25% of patients who underwent a code requiring CPR etc in a hospital will get to leave the hospital alive. I don't know if such stat is available for scuba diving victim, on one hand there are less qualitfied personal and equipments available but often the situation occurs along with various degree of hypothermia which actually is helpful as far as the victim is concerned.
joele
Guest
yes!!! got my post in successfully...
indeed, our internet server has been finally fixed...
indeed, our internet server has been finally fixed...
Regarding what would be "required to hold up in a court of law".....
I suppose there are people posting here from various backgrounds - from professional medical personnel, to "bystanders". It has always been my understanding that in the U.S., a lay-person (and even professionals) giving emergency first-aid or CPR is protected by "Good Samaritan" laws. This seems to differ from state to state. Here is a link to the Florida statutes.
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/
The statute is 768.13
Select the chapter on TORTS, then Negligence, then Part I, and then scroll to 768.13 - the Good Samaritan Act.
I suppose there are people posting here from various backgrounds - from professional medical personnel, to "bystanders". It has always been my understanding that in the U.S., a lay-person (and even professionals) giving emergency first-aid or CPR is protected by "Good Samaritan" laws. This seems to differ from state to state. Here is a link to the Florida statutes.
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/
The statute is 768.13
Select the chapter on TORTS, then Negligence, then Part I, and then scroll to 768.13 - the Good Samaritan Act.
g8trdiver,
You are correct, each state may differ somewhat..but for the most part the Good Samaritan Act is in-place to protect bystanders that aid in the rescue, support etc of an accident or otherwise victim. Though, there are some potential hitches if you are a medical professional, and you do have a standard of care to uphold once you initiate treatment of any kind.
Let's say, for example, that you are an off duty EMT and you whiteness a motor vehicle accident. You are not required by law, in most states, to act. If, however, you do decide to assist, then you are bound by law to continue to assist until someone of equal or greater training takes over for you. Should you not continue to act and stop rendering treatment, this would be abandonment and is against the law. If, also during your treatment of said patient, you do not perform the tasks that another person trained similarly would, or perform them incorrectly, this could be considered negligence...
Vermont, Louisiana, and Minnesota have very different laws termed, "Failure to Act, " laws. These laws Apply to all citizens, and assign an affirmative duty to aid a victim in need. "Failure to Act" laws are also found in some European countries. Demonstrated in the case against photographers present at the accident scene when Princess Diana was killed.
Cheers
~Crazy_J
:doctor:
You are correct, each state may differ somewhat..but for the most part the Good Samaritan Act is in-place to protect bystanders that aid in the rescue, support etc of an accident or otherwise victim. Though, there are some potential hitches if you are a medical professional, and you do have a standard of care to uphold once you initiate treatment of any kind.
Let's say, for example, that you are an off duty EMT and you whiteness a motor vehicle accident. You are not required by law, in most states, to act. If, however, you do decide to assist, then you are bound by law to continue to assist until someone of equal or greater training takes over for you. Should you not continue to act and stop rendering treatment, this would be abandonment and is against the law. If, also during your treatment of said patient, you do not perform the tasks that another person trained similarly would, or perform them incorrectly, this could be considered negligence...
Vermont, Louisiana, and Minnesota have very different laws termed, "Failure to Act, " laws. These laws Apply to all citizens, and assign an affirmative duty to aid a victim in need. "Failure to Act" laws are also found in some European countries. Demonstrated in the case against photographers present at the accident scene when Princess Diana was killed.
Cheers
~Crazy_J
:doctor:
Thanks Crazy_J,
Your response was very well explained. Since I'm basically working on the thoery learned in class instead of real experience, I thought it best to post the link to the statutes instead of trying to interpret them myself (not a lawyer). I'm sure the circmstances of each case are key to what is or isn't reasonable.
From my CPR refresher course, I do believe abandonment applies even to "bystanders" once they've chosen to begin aid. It's sad that we've become such a litigious society that stopping to help can potentially ruin your career or life.... It seems that this is the reason for the Good Samaritan laws - to encourage people to help if they can.
I must say, the idea of trying to help and actually doing more harm frightens me - I feel very comfortable with basic CPR/First Aid, but in the case of some kind of traumatic accident that could involve head or spinal injury.... I sincerely hope I never have to face that scenario without EMT's 5 minutes away.
Your response was very well explained. Since I'm basically working on the thoery learned in class instead of real experience, I thought it best to post the link to the statutes instead of trying to interpret them myself (not a lawyer). I'm sure the circmstances of each case are key to what is or isn't reasonable.
From my CPR refresher course, I do believe abandonment applies even to "bystanders" once they've chosen to begin aid. It's sad that we've become such a litigious society that stopping to help can potentially ruin your career or life.... It seems that this is the reason for the Good Samaritan laws - to encourage people to help if they can.
I must say, the idea of trying to help and actually doing more harm frightens me - I feel very comfortable with basic CPR/First Aid, but in the case of some kind of traumatic accident that could involve head or spinal injury.... I sincerely hope I never have to face that scenario without EMT's 5 minutes away.
I teach Medic First Aid (have not switched over yet) and am a PADI OWSI. On top of that I was a lifeguard for 8 years at Daytona Beach and have had to assess/evaluate unconscious, non-breathing swimmers at the surface several times.
Time is certainly important, however, as a weak pulse is difficult to determine, especially in the water, it is advised that rescue breaths are made. The reasoning is that if you do not offer rescue breaths the non-breathing person's pulse will soon stop no matter what.
As far as time restrictions are concerned, practicing your towing/rescue breathing/gear removal is a sure way to increase your speed.
IBKuz
Registered
Newbie here, this is my first post on this board.
I am just in the middle of getting my Rescue Diver certification so I found this discussion very interesting. I am also a First-Aid instructor for the Canadian Ski Patrol System.
I have a couple of questions on this topic that would help me better understand the circumstances of this type of rescue.
1. If a person is recovered from depth and brought to the surface with their regulator in place, does water get into their lungs
2. If a person is recovered from depth and brought to the surface without their regulator in place, does water get into their lungs.
3. In both these cases, if water does get in, does it completely fill their lungs
It would seem to me that if there were significant amounts of water in the lungs then AR would be impossible or at best limited in it's affect. Therefore, the priority would then be to get the victim out of the water to clear their airway. This would certainly clarify to me whether I should be giving AR or get them out of the water as quickely as possible. In the Ski Patrol we have a saying that helps guide our actions at an accident site, "Assume the worst, prove the best". In this case the "worst" (IMO) would be to assume they don't have a pulse and since I can not prove they do, I would have to at least give them AR as I can not perform CPR.
As with all incidents of this nature the only modifiers that I can see to this debate is that of enviromental/logistic concerns and the danger of further injury to myself or the victim. Any of these concerns could make me change my AR decision but that is only something that can be decided at an actual event and can not really be answered untill that time.
Ian
I am just in the middle of getting my Rescue Diver certification so I found this discussion very interesting. I am also a First-Aid instructor for the Canadian Ski Patrol System.
I have a couple of questions on this topic that would help me better understand the circumstances of this type of rescue.
1. If a person is recovered from depth and brought to the surface with their regulator in place, does water get into their lungs
2. If a person is recovered from depth and brought to the surface without their regulator in place, does water get into their lungs.
3. In both these cases, if water does get in, does it completely fill their lungs
It would seem to me that if there were significant amounts of water in the lungs then AR would be impossible or at best limited in it's affect. Therefore, the priority would then be to get the victim out of the water to clear their airway. This would certainly clarify to me whether I should be giving AR or get them out of the water as quickely as possible. In the Ski Patrol we have a saying that helps guide our actions at an accident site, "Assume the worst, prove the best". In this case the "worst" (IMO) would be to assume they don't have a pulse and since I can not prove they do, I would have to at least give them AR as I can not perform CPR.
As with all incidents of this nature the only modifiers that I can see to this debate is that of enviromental/logistic concerns and the danger of further injury to myself or the victim. Any of these concerns could make me change my AR decision but that is only something that can be decided at an actual event and can not really be answered untill that time.
Ian
Similar threads
