Sas
Contributor
This was part of my rescue training, both with SSI and BSAC. BSAC was more detailed and covered the media, family, and things like that.
Would you still get involved?
- Thread starter MXGratefulDiver
- 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
This was part of my rescue training, both with SSI and BSAC. BSAC was more detailed and covered the media, family, and things like that.
zenheadhunter
Registered
I am not dive recue trained but have extensive medical and rescue training which is relate directly to my work and the enviroment we work in.I would definately attempt to do all i could until i could no longer safely ,to save another persons life barring giving mine in return.Being sued or filmed would have no bearing on my decision to respond.
I am Rescue Diver trained.
It's hard to tell what one (I) would do. I think I would scream at the person to turn that @%#* thing off - and then continue. I might even do something irrational, like grab the camera and throw it in the water. I don't know. I do think that if someone else was performing the rescue and they ask that the camera would be stopped, I would step in front of the camera in a very assertive way - and the filming would either stop or it would be of my stomach.
But thinking it through - I'm single minded enough, I would probably focus on the task/rescue at hand. But if it distracted me, I would demand it off - and it would stop.
It's hard to tell what one (I) would do. I think I would scream at the person to turn that @%#* thing off - and then continue. I might even do something irrational, like grab the camera and throw it in the water. I don't know. I do think that if someone else was performing the rescue and they ask that the camera would be stopped, I would step in front of the camera in a very assertive way - and the filming would either stop or it would be of my stomach.
But thinking it through - I'm single minded enough, I would probably focus on the task/rescue at hand. But if it distracted me, I would demand it off - and it would stop.
stakanak
Guest
I am a photographer/cinematographer and though not rescue trained, I believe that unless you are completely useless in the assistance of another human, it is unethical and immoral to continue shooting.
Put down the camera and help in any way possible-you would want the same done for you!
Good Diving
Put down the camera and help in any way possible-you would want the same done for you!
Good Diving
After reading these posts, I think thank God I do not live or dive under US jurisdiction. I would automatically always help my buddy, and do everything to save then, regarding their life only as second to mine.
drl
Contributor
I have rescue training, but have never had to use it, thank goodness.
I suspect that, in an emergency, I would not even notice a photographer. But if I did it would make me hesitate. I am not a professional first responder (and therefore not insured), and being sued, even if you prevail, can cost everything you have and then some just to fight the suit.
I believe and hope that I would do what is necessary at the time and worry about it afterwards.
I suspect that, in an emergency, I would not even notice a photographer. But if I did it would make me hesitate. I am not a professional first responder (and therefore not insured), and being sued, even if you prevail, can cost everything you have and then some just to fight the suit.
I believe and hope that I would do what is necessary at the time and worry about it afterwards.
OldNSalty
Contributor
A couple of thoughts on this pole;
First, unless you’ve actually been in the situation you don’t really know what you will do. You think you do, so do soldiers going into combat. Unlike divers, who take one 2 day course possibly years ago, we drill into soldiers a thousand times over how to react to a situation and then go another thousand. You will do this, exactly this, you will not deviate, you will not do that and you will not do the other thing, this and only this for the given situation. You still have soldiers freeze and fail to react correctly.
So to that, for those who said they would help regardless, I hope you do but you may not. You will most likely find yourself asking; ‘Can I really do this? What are the laws here? Maybe someone else should take the lead.’ Some of you (I hope most) will say the hell with it and do the right thing. Some might not and that is just the way it is. Filming will likely add to your natural anxiety.
As to filming the event, when my children were born, the hospital was adamant about one thing. When the Dr. comes in the camera goes off and at no point is video allowed-only still pics. Why do you think this is?
First, unless you’ve actually been in the situation you don’t really know what you will do. You think you do, so do soldiers going into combat. Unlike divers, who take one 2 day course possibly years ago, we drill into soldiers a thousand times over how to react to a situation and then go another thousand. You will do this, exactly this, you will not deviate, you will not do that and you will not do the other thing, this and only this for the given situation. You still have soldiers freeze and fail to react correctly.
So to that, for those who said they would help regardless, I hope you do but you may not. You will most likely find yourself asking; ‘Can I really do this? What are the laws here? Maybe someone else should take the lead.’ Some of you (I hope most) will say the hell with it and do the right thing. Some might not and that is just the way it is. Filming will likely add to your natural anxiety.
As to filming the event, when my children were born, the hospital was adamant about one thing. When the Dr. comes in the camera goes off and at no point is video allowed-only still pics. Why do you think this is?
adurso
Contributor
The idea of a civil suit is recurring in this thread, as it does in so many others relating to diving.
Before folks worry about a civil suit they should look at what Good Samaritan Laws actually say.
Definitions are in order as well; "duty to act" "standards of care" "acting within training" and in relation to this thread "freedom of the press"
Good Samaritan Acts basically exist to prevent the fear of lawsuit from stopping would be rescuers. he laws vary from state to state, in some states only trained people are covered, formal first aid training, or CPR etc. The common thread of these laws is consent, training, and stopping.
Duty to act/rescue only applies to professionals, police officers, firefighters and so on in he course of their duties, it is a general duty, not specific.
There are a couple of states that do place the duty upon regular people, though enforcement is seldom.
Standards of care relate to the duty of care; if one has a duty of care (generally professionals in a paying relationship), then the care must be reasonable in relation to the standards of the profession.
Acting within training is important for amateur rescuers, this is the component that will nullify any protections afforded by Good Samaritan type laws: do not do anything one is not trained and practiced to do. In California some well meaning rescuers pulled a person from their vehicle not heeding the victim's desire to be left alone. The would be rescuers claimed imminent danger from fire. They turned the victim into a paraplegic. They had two problems; they were not trained to extricate a victim in those circumstances, and did not have consent from a conscious victim.
Whatever freedoms the press has (which relates to government interference, not the ability to annoy/harass private citizens) does not apply to Joe Ghoul with a cell phone or handy cam.
Generally speaking most private citizens are not worth enough to launch a civil suit against.
Civil suits are launched on the "deep pockets" guideline. The entity with the deepest pockets gets sued.
Most people are not worth the time of a wrongful death or negligence suit.
And those with the resources to be worth a suit have already protected their resources.
Before folks worry about a civil suit they should look at what Good Samaritan Laws actually say.
Definitions are in order as well; "duty to act" "standards of care" "acting within training" and in relation to this thread "freedom of the press"
Good Samaritan Acts basically exist to prevent the fear of lawsuit from stopping would be rescuers. he laws vary from state to state, in some states only trained people are covered, formal first aid training, or CPR etc. The common thread of these laws is consent, training, and stopping.
Duty to act/rescue only applies to professionals, police officers, firefighters and so on in he course of their duties, it is a general duty, not specific.
There are a couple of states that do place the duty upon regular people, though enforcement is seldom.
Standards of care relate to the duty of care; if one has a duty of care (generally professionals in a paying relationship), then the care must be reasonable in relation to the standards of the profession.
Acting within training is important for amateur rescuers, this is the component that will nullify any protections afforded by Good Samaritan type laws: do not do anything one is not trained and practiced to do. In California some well meaning rescuers pulled a person from their vehicle not heeding the victim's desire to be left alone. The would be rescuers claimed imminent danger from fire. They turned the victim into a paraplegic. They had two problems; they were not trained to extricate a victim in those circumstances, and did not have consent from a conscious victim.
Whatever freedoms the press has (which relates to government interference, not the ability to annoy/harass private citizens) does not apply to Joe Ghoul with a cell phone or handy cam.
Generally speaking most private citizens are not worth enough to launch a civil suit against.
Civil suits are launched on the "deep pockets" guideline. The entity with the deepest pockets gets sued.
Most people are not worth the time of a wrongful death or negligence suit.
And those with the resources to be worth a suit have already protected their resources.
I'd help first and worry about the video later.
I wouldn't yell at the cameraman. For all I know, the person with the camera has already determined that they do not have the knowledge or training or ability to assist, and we all know that the first thing you're supposed to assess is whether or not you'd be a rescuer or a second victim...
If the video lands in the hands of a lawyer, I don't really care. The Good Samaritan laws should cover me.
If there's nobody else on site more qualified than me then I'm the best hope the victim has.
Emergency situations by definition don't go according to plan or they wouldn't be emergencies, so I can only do the best I can.
It's easy for some lawyer-type with the luxury of time and hindsight to look back on a rescue and dictate what someone else should have done. Put that same person in the position of the rescuer in the time-critical emergency situation and odds are they won't do any better.
I wouldn't yell at the cameraman. For all I know, the person with the camera has already determined that they do not have the knowledge or training or ability to assist, and we all know that the first thing you're supposed to assess is whether or not you'd be a rescuer or a second victim...
If the video lands in the hands of a lawyer, I don't really care. The Good Samaritan laws should cover me.
If there's nobody else on site more qualified than me then I'm the best hope the victim has.
Emergency situations by definition don't go according to plan or they wouldn't be emergencies, so I can only do the best I can.
It's easy for some lawyer-type with the luxury of time and hindsight to look back on a rescue and dictate what someone else should have done. Put that same person in the position of the rescuer in the time-critical emergency situation and odds are they won't do any better.
Fear of lawsuits.
Someday in the not-too-distant future there will be people with bionic eyeballs, constantly recording and uploading everything they see, in realtime, to their personal Facebook vlog page or whatever. The difference between organic memory and digital memory will become blurred. Here and now, Great Britain already has the greatest number of surveillance cameras per capita in the world. More are being added everyday in the U.S. as well.
The point being, you may not know now when your actions are being recorded, and you will definitely not know in the future. The only way you know right now is because of the way someone is holding their cellphone or camcorder. Since you don't really know if you're being recorded anyway, then as long as the recorder you are aware of is staying out of the way of those assisting, what difference does it really make? Screaming at them just makes you look like an imbecile, wastes time you could be using to actually help out, and somehow grabbing or destroying their property definitely opens you up to a lawsuit.
Probably best to act as if whatever you are doing is already being recorded, whether you know that to be true or not.
Similar threads
