Teach you not to jaywalk

[rmemedic]

Aren't there Good Samaritan Laws in Canada?
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/goodsamaritan.htm

Yeah, but the issue is I'm "trained". So I can go as far as I'm legally allowed. If I come up to a scene, and say someone is bleeding through a femoral artery, I am not legally allowed to grab one of my tourniquets and stop the bleeding, despite the fact it would save the life from possible death within minutes. The reason, is they are still controversial in the "old boys club" of medicine, despite all the research put in to them as to their risk vs reward.
In vietnam, 25% of battle field deaths were by loss of blood through wounds in the limbs. With what we do now, that number is very, very low and in those cases there were either other complications or the bleed was in a spot that you couldn't properly put on the tourniquet or pack the wound.
That said, if I tried all of my other options to stop the bleeding, and they weren't working, I would put on the tourniquet and take whatever slap I get.
They are worried about loss of the limb after the use of a tourniquet, but you can have them on as long as 6 HOURS without permanent damage.
Aside from that, I can do almost anything else. Put in airways, C-Spine victims, splint fractures, basically anything to keep someone alive until help gets there.

[RockerGuy]

Yeah, but the issue is I'm "trained". So I can go as far as I'm legally allowed. If I come up to a scene, and say someone is bleeding through a femoral artery, I am not legally allowed to grab one of my tourniquets and stop the bleeding, despite the fact it would save the life from possible death within minutes. The reason, is they are still controversial in the "old boys club" of medicine, despite all the research put in to them as to their risk vs reward.
In vietnam, 25% of battle field deaths were by loss of blood through wounds in the limbs. With what we do now, that number is very, very low and in those cases there were either other complications or the bleed was in a spot that you couldn't properly put on the tourniquet or pack the wound.
That said, if I tried all of my other options to stop the bleeding, and they weren't working, I would put on the tourniquet and take whatever slap I get.
They are worried about loss of the limb after the use of a tourniquet, but you can have them on as long as 6 HOURS without permanent damage.
Aside from that, I can do almost anything else. Put in airways, C-Spine victims, splint fractures, basically anything to keep someone alive until help gets there.

I guess the laws and roles are different here.
In some places I've heard doctors are legally obliged to treat a victim in a life/death situation. Meaning when they took that oath, it would be illegal for them to ignore someone.

Then again, the laws are different in different areas, and I am not too sure since u're a medic, not doc

[nobbie48]

Yeah, but the issue is I'm "trained". So I can go as far as I'm legally allowed. If I come up to a scene, and say someone is bleeding through a femoral artery, I am not legally allowed to grab one of my tourniquets and stop the bleeding, despite the fact it would save the life from possible death within minutes. The reason, is they are still controversial in the "old boys club" of medicine, despite all the research put in to them as to their risk vs reward.
In vietnam, 25% of battle field deaths were by loss of blood through wounds in the limbs. With what we do now, that number is very, very low and in those cases there were either other complications or the bleed was in a spot that you couldn't properly put on the tourniquet or pack the wound.
That said, if I tried all of my other options to stop the bleeding, and they weren't working, I would put on the tourniquet and take whatever slap I get.
They are worried about loss of the limb after the use of a tourniquet, but you can have them on as long as 6 HOURS without permanent damage.
Aside from that, I can do almost anything else. Put in airways, C-Spine victims, splint fractures, basically anything to keep someone alive until help gets there.

A few lawyers need their femoral arteries cut in accidents. I read it as you having more leeway.

[REDBALLS]

I guess the laws and roles are different here.
In some places I've heard doctors are legally obliged to treat a victim in a life/death situation. Meaning when they took that oath, it would be illegal for them to ignore someone.

Then again, the laws are different in different areas, and I am not too sure since u're a medic, not doc

From my understanding of the good samaritan laws in Ontario. It doesn't obligate you to act in an emergency situation; it just covers the rescuer's butt if something goes wrong during the rescue. The law is in place so that trained rescuer's do not need to think twice or really worry about the consequences of lending a hand to someone in distress. I.e) A trained Rescuer gives CPR to a old lady, and breaks the old lady's fragile ribs. The rescuer would not be held liable. But there are loop holes that could get you in trouble. You are only covered if you you are following local medical directives or SOG's that you were trained in. I.e) A FF pulls up to an accident realizes a airway is blocked on a patient and decides to do an emergency tracheotomy with a pen, because he saw it on House earlier that week. The FF could possibly open himself to a lawsuit because he was not following the local medical directives he was trained in.

[rmemedic]

I guess the laws and roles are different here.
In some places I've heard doctors are legally obliged to treat a victim in a life/death situation. Meaning when they took that oath, it would be illegal for them to ignore someone.

Then again, the laws are different in different areas, and I am not too sure since u're a medic, not doc

There is no doubt that I will be treating someone, but only as far as I am legally allowed to... Same as them. A general practitioner won't be allowed to do certain things that say an ER doc would be, simply because they haven't been trained. They also can't do something that "could" cause more harm than another intervention which would bring out the same positive effect of the treatment.

[RockerGuy]

From my understanding of the good samaritan laws in Ontario. It doesn't obligate you to act in an emergency situation; it just covers the rescuer's butt if something goes wrong during the rescue. The law is in place so that trained rescuer's do not need to think twice or really worry about the consequences of lending a hand to someone in distress. I.e) A trained Rescuer gives CPR to a old lady, and breaks the old lady's fragile ribs. The rescuer would not be held liable. But there are loop holes that could get you in trouble. You are only covered if you you are following local medical directives or SOG's that you were trained in. I.e) A FF pulls up to an accident realizes a airway is blocked on a patient and decides to do an emergency tracheotomy with a pen, because he saw it on House earlier that week. The FF could possibly open himself to a lawsuit because he was not following the local medical directives he was trained in.

Aware of good samaritan law and what's it about.
Separate topic... Not sure if doctors are obliged to save a victim, since he took the Hippocratic Oath.

Since rmemedic is in the Medical field, not sure if they have to take that oath too.

[rmemedic]

From my understanding of the good samaritan laws in Ontario. It doesn't obligate you to act in an emergency situation; it just covers the rescuer's butt if something goes wrong during the rescue. The law is in place so that trained rescuer's do not need to think twice or really worry about the consequences of lending a hand to someone in distress. I.e) A trained Rescuer gives CPR to a old lady, and breaks the old lady's fragile ribs. The rescuer would not be held liable. But there are loop holes that could get you in trouble. You are only covered if you you are following local medical directives or SOG's that you were trained in. I.e) A FF pulls up to an accident realizes a airway is blocked on a patient and decides to do an emergency tracheotomy with a pen, because he saw it on House earlier that week. The FF could possibly open himself to a lawsuit because he was not following the local medical directives he was trained in.

Thanks!
My vocabulary sucks when it comes to making things clear.

There are a lot of things I'm trained to do, that I couldn't do as a good samaritan, simply because my @$$ isn't covered.

[nobbie48]

Thanks!
My vocabulary sucks when it comes to making things clear.

There are a lot of things I'm trained to do, that I couldn't do as a good samaritan, simply because my @$$ isn't covered.

We were out on a ride (20-30 bikes) and a newbie took a nose dive. A full face kept damage down to minor scrapes and minor concussion. A passer-by assisted in stabilizing the situation as he was a paramedic. I related the incident to a fire fighter I knew and they were surprised that the paramedic even stopped, due to potential liability, doing too much or too little.

I couldn't imagine standing next to someone bleeding to death and saying "I can stop this but the rule book says to keep out of it."

[Banger]

I am not a qualified paramedic yet (graduating my first year hopefully this week )
As far as I know, civilian paramedics are required to stop and access a scene and perform acts within our scope of practice.
I also asked two other students who happen to be my roommates. We could be wrong on this (Med Legal was last semester).
As far as our understanding goes, we are still covered by the "Good Samaritan" Act however, we are held to a higher standard on account of our training. If we go outside out scope of practice, we can get in serious trouble for it. Now, many of our interventions have to be delegated to us by a medical director so ... this could be problematic as a paramedic in civi's just passing by. I will ask my profs tomorrow though so I am not giving a false answer.

[OpenGambit]

Just do the right thing and worry about it later.

The law in this area, as with almost every other area, is very reasonable.

I won't bother saying much more because people will complain no matter what.
The amount of paranoia that people display about getting sued is completely ridiculous and unjustified.

[vic_himself]

That wasn't very nice.

[conundrum]

On the radio this morning (chumfm I think), during the news they mentioned someone is trying to lobby speed limit reductions in Toronto, as every 10km/h drop in speed from 60 results in a much lower risk of death or severe injury. I think they said they were proposing a 30-40km/h limit, which thankfully should be laughed right out of city hall.

What happened in the video in the first post is totally unacceptable, however I am getting tired of people trying to put the blame 100% on motorists these days. People should be taught not to jaywalk and to watch out for their own lives, vs putting 100% on the driver/rider. Although I will say for whatever reason with each passing year, pedestrians seem to get dumber and drivers seem to get worse.

EDIT: Seems someone just made a thread on this as well:
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...09#post1777909

[RockerGuy]

On the radio this morning (chumfm I think), during the news they mentioned someone is trying to lobby speed limit reductions in Toronto, as every 10km/h drop in speed from 60 results in a much lower risk of death or severe injury. I think they said they were proposing a 30-40km/h limit, which thankfully should be laughed right out of city hall.

What happened in the video in the first post is totally unacceptable, however I am getting tired of people trying to put the blame 100% on motorists these days. People should be taught not to jaywalk and to watch out for their own lives, vs putting 100% on the driver/rider. Although I will say for whatever reason with each passing year, pedestrians seem to get dumber and drivers seem to get worse.

EDIT: Seems someone just made a thread on this as well:
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...09#post1777909

Pedestrian accidents are on the rise when the weather get crappy and rainy. Simply cuz most people are wearing all black and the vehicles' windows are fogged up, combined with limited visibility.

These pedestrians are not looking to see if the driver had seen them. Darwin always win

[rutakin]

Pedestrian accidents are on the rise when the weather get crappy and rainy. Simply cuz most people are wearing all black and the vehicles' windows are fogged up, combined with limited visibility.

These pedestrians are not looking to see if the driver had seen them. Darwin always win

I know how that guy feels. I was making a left on an advanced green and a group of about 5 teen girls were crossing against the light and then started cussing me off.

If i didn't care about by car i would have hit the gas, but man it made my blood boil!.

[FiReSTaRT]

I know how that guy feels. I was making a left on an advanced green and a group of about 5 teen girls were crossing against the light and then started cussing me off.

If i didn't care about by car i would have hit the gas, but man it made my blood boil!.

Or, you stop on red and are about to make a turn, they already have a flashing red but they still start crossing. I generally just go through with the horn blasting as long as I'm not running anybody over.