Death on a plane

[supercut]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Per the FDA



There's a more technical (but older) listing here

"Plastic 'airways" "???? Could they be refering to oxygen mask? Cuz in my would an "airway" would be an ETT, requring a laryngoscope and specalized training to use.

 

[Castro Viejo]

"Plastic 'airways" "???? Could they be refering to oxygen mask? Cuz in my would an "airway" would be an ETT, requring a laryngoscope and specalized training to use.

Probably means the "oral airway" the gas passers use when bagging someone.

 

[Castro Viejo]

Is there any legal requirement for a physician to respond to an emergency like this?

Of course not. This ain't France where every schmoe is expected to be a "Good Samaritan." This is the United States of Frigginmerica. You can choose to be apathetic and not give a rat's *** about anyone, as the Bill of Rights allows you this.

 

[Tired]

Of course not. This ain't France where every schmoe is expected to be a "Good Samaritan." This is the United States of Frigginmerica. You can choose to be apathetic and not give a rat's *** about anyone, as the Bill of Rights allows you this.

Is it really this cut and dried? I certainly don't know much about it, but I was under the impression that the training/licensure conferred obligations to act in certain circumstances. Obviously in a professional capacity, physicians cannot choose not to help (ie - failing to respond to a code if you are on the code team). It wouldn't have suprised me at all if someone had said that "failure to render aid in an emergency situation" was grounds for having your license pulled.

 

[Leukocyte]

Thats what I have been told.

When you are in PUBLIC, out side the hospital were you practice...

...As long as you do not identify yourself as a doctor, then you are covered by the "Good Sameritan" law, and under no obligation to help. If you do identify yourself as a physician, then you MUST help...and you will be NOT covered by the "Good Sameritan" law, so if you refuse to help or the patient dies, you will be liable.

Moral of the story, If you do not want to help in public, DO NOT identify yourself as a physician....or you can help, but keep your mouth shut

 

[Leukocyte]

I'm sure you're probably just trying to make a point about the state of things in terms of lawsuits these days. However, if you were serious I think these doctors would be covered by good samaritan laws which would protect them from prosecution. Otherwise doctors on planes would just sit there and let the mess unfold for fear of a bad outcome and lawsuit.

No the Good Sameritan law DOES NOT protect doctors who publicly identified themselves as physicians. Once you identify yourself as a licenced physician, the victim automaticly becomes YOUR PATIENT, and you MUST render medical care.

 

[Tired]

No the Good Sameritan law DOES NOT protect doctors who publicly identified themselves as physicians. Once you identify yourself as a licenced physician, the victim automaticly becomes YOUR PATIENT, and you MUST render medical care.

That doesn't really jive with what aPD posted earlier.

 

[Annette]

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

 

[Leukocyte]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the GSL is State dependent. So it depends on the State you are in. My post is based on the laws in the State of Wisconsin.

 

[pseudoknot]

The Good Samaritan law that aPD posted was the federal one (which applies to events in flight).

 

[pseudoknot]

No the Good Sameritan law DOES NOT protect doctors who publicly identified themselves as physicians. Once you identify yourself as a licenced physician, the victim automaticly becomes YOUR PATIENT, and you MUST render medical care.

That's not what the Wisconsin statute actually says:

895.48 Civil liability exemption; emergency care, athletic events health care, hazardous substances and information concerning paternity.

(1) Any person who renders emergency care at the scene of any emergency or accident in good faith shall be immune from civil liability for his or her acts or omissions in rendering such emergency care. This immunity does not extend when employees trained in health care or health care professionals render emergency care for compensation and within the scope of their usual and customary employment or practice at a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities, at the scene of any emergency or accident, enroute to a hospital or other institution equipped with hospital facilities or at a physician’s office.

What that means is that it doesn't apply if you are at work. If you are not being paid or not present at the scene in the course of your job, you fall under the protection of the law.

 

[Trifling Jester]

Is it really this cut and dried? I certainly don't know much about it, but I was under the impression that the training/licensure conferred obligations to act in certain circumstances. Obviously in a professional capacity, physicians cannot choose not to help (ie - failing to respond to a code if you are on the code team). It wouldn't have suprised me at all if someone had said that "failure to render aid in an emergency situation" was grounds for having your license pulled.

Hell no, you don't have to help anyone outside of the work setting. I sure as hell wouldn't. Lawyers can sue you for anything, anytime, anywhere. Now, their case may get thrown out, but there's nothing that precludes someone from filing a lawsuit against you. And is it really worth it to put yourself through all that hassle?

-The Trifling Jester

 

[Castro Viejo]

Is it really this cut and dried? I certainly don't know much about it, but I was under the impression that the training/licensure conferred obligations to act in certain circumstances. Obviously in a professional capacity, physicians cannot choose not to help (ie - failing to respond to a code if you are on the code team). It wouldn't have suprised me at all if someone had said that "failure to render aid in an emergency situation" was grounds for having your license pulled.

It sounds legitimate, but I don't believe the law requires you to be a physician and help no matter what outside of your workplace. And as a resident, though you have an M.D. and in many cases even have a license to practice in your primary state, you've got ZERO malpractice outside your training facility. If you do anything that may land you in court, you're screwed.

The whole identifying yourself in public as a physician means that you now have to help is garbage (at least in New York State). I mean, you might look like a jerk and an butt-muncher if you're walking about the grocery store and someone collapses in the aisles and start seizing... To just stare up at the ceiling, walking away while whistling is probably not a good thing to do for PR purposes. But you wouldn't be wrong in the eyes of the law to do such a thing. I looked all this crap up in New York because this is one of the few states in the Union that offers its licensed physicians and surgeons "M.D. plates" and I got them for my car.

I know what you're gonna say. "What a frickin' tool." "What a loser." "He just wants to drop the M.D. bomb everywhere and get some play."

No, no, and it doesn't work when you're in a city of stock brokers, traders, and investment bankers who make 15-20 times more than you.

Unlike in other states that offer M.D. plates, New York City has parking areas near hospitals, healthcare facilities, and government agencies specifically for "M.D. plated vehicles ONLY" or "Doctors Vehicles ONLY." It's awesome. Parking in New York City on the street is impossible during work hours. Parking in a garage can easily run you $40-$50 per day. A parking ticket is well over $100. M.D. plates? $45. And they're good all day, for whatever designated spot you find. And it's mad props for the Five-Ohs when they pull your a$$ over for going "a little over the speed limit." 🙂

Anyway when I got them, everyone said, "You know, loser, you're gonna have to stop at every traffic accident now." "You're going to have to follow every ambulance that whizzes by, you know." This obviously got me concerned. I looked it up. It's all bullcrap in New York. Physician or not, you have your civil liberties and that includes the "Right to Not Care."

 

[f_w]

M.D. plates? $45.

Getting overcharged at your next oilchange: $60
Getting cut-off by some ghetto low-life to provoke an accident with a 'rich doctor': priceless.

They have their benefits but also their risks, not everyone gets them for that reason.
In my days, the on-call residents covering various hospitals had laminated cards from the hospital to put under the windshield. The local meter maids and cops would honor those cards. That way you didn't need the MD plates but where able to use the 'doctors vehicle only' spots.

And it's mad props for the Five-Ohs when they pull your a$$ over for going "a little over the speed limit." 🙂

There actually used to be a mechanism through the NY medical society that allowed you to make tickets 'go away magically' if you could provide some reasonable evidence that you were 'heading to the hospital to attend a patient'. Oh, the good old days.

 

[Castro Viejo]

Getting overcharged at your next oilchange: $60

I change my own oil. 🙂

Getting cut-off by some ghetto low-life to provoke an accident with a 'rich doctor': priceless.

This I did consider. That's why they're on my 1988 Toyota Crapolla. It's a little embarassing when I park it in the lot next to my attendings' fancier cars. Cars that have power windows, more than four cylinders, and stuff.

In my days, the on-call residents covering various hospitals had laminated cards from the hospital to put under the windshield. The local meter maids and cops would honor those cards. That way you didn't need the MD plates but where able to use the 'doctors vehicle only' spots.

Such cards still exist in the city for certain hospitals. Certain hospitals even have the M.D. spaces in their immediate vicinity reserved ONLY for their staff. It's wild.

Even without the plates, if you were willing to leave your hospital badge on the dashboard, I find that most meter maids and ticket nazis are willing to give you a by. The problem is everyone in the world knows who the heck you are.

There actually used to be a mechanism through the NY medical society that allowed you to make tickets 'go away magically' if you could provide some reasonable evidence that you were 'heading to the hospital to attend a patient'. Oh, the good old days.

Fee for service, nurses that didn't talk back, fewer instances of malpractice litigation, and NOW THE DISAPPEARING TRAFFIC TICKET?! I was born at the wrong time, man...

 

[Doowai]

When buying tickets online, it gives an option of listing yourself as Miss, Mrs, Mr, or Dr. Now I would never pick "Dr" because the airline would know to put you on the spot, and if you refused I wonder if you could be then named for failing to act. I believe states have a law requiring you to help law enforcement or medically if there is a need (this is a fact, I saw it on the final episode of Seinfeld...j/k).

 

[Leukocyte]

That's not what the Wisconsin statute

It is not that simple. This is an article by a Wisconsin lawyer analyzing the case "Mueller v. McMillian Warner Insurance Co"

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=66146

His conclusions:

"When no emergency care is provided, a caregiver cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan statute. A Good Samaritan can make the initial evaluation, and offer immediate assistance, treatment, and intervention to an injured person. But then, after that emergency care is provided, the injured person is to be transferred to professional medical personnel. If no medical transfer is made, the Good Samaritan immunity law exemption no longer applies."

So this means that, if in Wisconsin, you failed to provide emergency care, then you cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan Statue.....So if the victim sued an MD who happened to be at the scene of the accident for failing to provide ER care, then that MD cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan.

 

[pseudoknot]

It is not that simple. This is an article by a Wisconsin lawyer analyzing the case "Mueller v. McMillian Warner Insurance Co"

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=66146

His conclusions:

"When no emergency care is provided, a caregiver cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan statute. A Good Samaritan can make the initial evaluation, and offer immediate assistance, treatment, and intervention to an injured person. But then, after that emergency care is provided, the injured person is to be transferred to professional medical personnel. If no medical transfer is made, the Good Samaritan immunity law exemption no longer applies."

So this means that, if in Wisconsin, you failed to provide emergency care, then you cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan Statue.....So if the victim sued an MD who happened to be at the scene of the accident for failing to provide ER care, then that MD cannot receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan.

Well, it sounds like we've been talking about two different issues. You're talking about the obligation to help or lack thereof. I've been talking about the fact that the Good Samaritan laws are there to protect people who DO help from liability. It sounded like you were saying that Wisconsin's law didn't protect trained providers who stopped to help, which is certainly not the case.

From the article you posted: (bold added)

In reversing the circuit court's judgment, the court of appeals concluded:

"[W]hen the amaritan is a layperson, the intervention protected will ordinarily be of short duration and of an interim sort. Nothing in the statute suggests any intention that an ordinary person should make care-giving decisions any longer than the emergency situation necessitates…. That nothing was done to make medical help available to Mueller for over six hours only underscores the fact that Stephani was not responding as if to an emergency. Based on the undisputed facts in this case, the Switlicks thus did not provide any care that would entitle them to immunity from liability under Wis. Stat. § 895.48."16

Brief History of the Good Samaritan Statute

On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that the original Good Samaritan statute, enacted in 1963,17 provided immunity only to medical professionals (doctors and nurses) who rendered emergency care.18 In 1977 a statute was adopted that extended Good Samaritan protection to laypersons.

Note that the case being discussed had nothing to do with a physician or healthcare worker. It basically said that these laypeople were liable for trying to provide definitive (non-emergency) care by having the victims lay down for six hours instead of calling 911.

I don't have much respect for people who use the fear of phantom lawsuits to avoid doing what is right. Yes, people can sue for anything in theory, but typically lawyers prefer to take cases that have a chance of winning. As noted above, it seems that no one can find an example of a physician who was sued for rendering care covered by a Good Samaritan law.

In the case that started this thread, I can understand going after the airline, since if it's true that their oxygen tanks were empty they were probably negligent. I'd be surprised if the doctors were sued though.

 

[f_w]

No the Good Sameritan law DOES NOT protect doctors who publicly identified themselves as physicians. Once you identify yourself as a licenced physician, the victim automaticly becomes YOUR PATIENT, and you MUST render medical care.

"Mueller v. McMillian Warner Insurance Co" and the article on wisbar you referenced don't support this assertion in any way.

If you render care to someone in WI until an ambulance arrives you are clearly covered under the good samaritan law.

The case you referenced said essentially 'if your drunk kid hurts someone and you try to treat the resulting injury without seeking timely medical attention, you cannot hide behind the GSL to cover your stupidity'.

 

[Leukocyte]

Let me make myself clear. My argument is this...If a publicly known physician chooses not to render emergency care (in Wisconsin) while in a scene of an accident, and the victim (or victims family) knew that a publicly known physician was at that scene of that accident, would that publicly known physician receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan Statue if the victim (or victims family) sued that publicly known physician for failure to render emergency care?

 

[pseudoknot]

Let me make myself clear. My argument is this...If a publicly known physician chooses not to render emergency care (in Wisconsin) while in a scene of an accident, and the victim (or victims family) knew that a publicly known physician was at that scene of that accident, would that publicly known physician receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan Statue if the victim (or victims family) sued that publicly known physician for failure to render emergency care?

That has nothing to do with the Good Samaritan law. The purpose of the Good Samaritan law is to immunize people who DO choose to help, not to shield those who don't.

In general, there's no duty for an ordinary person to help anyone else (unless it's an accident you yourself were involved in). I don't know if Wisconsin or other states have laws that require physicians to do so, but I kind of doubt it. As I said, though, this has nothing at all to do with the purpose of a Good Samaritan law, which is to encourage people to help if they can.

 

[pseudoknot]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/02/frist.aid/

 

[f_w]

Let me make myself clear. My argument is this...If a publicly known physician chooses not to render emergency care (in Wisconsin) while in a scene of an accident, and the victim (or victims family) knew that a publicly known physician was at that scene of that accident, would that publicly known physician receive the immunity provided under the Good Samaritan Statue if the victim (or victims family) sued that publicly known physician for failure to render emergency care?

?? Is that a hypothesis or do you have anything to back this convoluted thought up ?? That article you referenced certainly provides nothing to support that thought.

 

[Leukocyte]

In general, there's no duty for an ordinary person to help anyone else (unless it's an accident you yourself were involved in).

Hmmm, why then was Seinfeld, Elane, George, and Crammer jailed for refusing to help the fat man?

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Hmmm, why then was Seinfeld, Elane, George, and Crammer jailed for refusing to help the fat man?

From Wikipedia, bastion of all knowledge:

"A Good Samaritan law was featured in the May 1998 series finale of the popular NBC sitcom Seinfeld, in which the show's four main characters were all prosecuted and sentenced to one year in jail for making fun of (rather than helping) an overweight man who was getting robbed at gunpoint. In reality, while Massachusetts (where the crime is committed) does have a law requiring passers-by to report a crime in progress, the most stringent punishment the characters could have suffered under those circumstances would have been a $500-$2500 fine (assuming they were prosecuted under state law); in addition, the phrase "Good Samaritan law," when used in Massachusetts, refers only to the civil law definition, and does not have any actual relevance to the law that Seinfeld and his friends were prosecuted for.[3]' "