Does having 'Rescue Diver' certification make you potentially more liable...

[Bubbletrubble]

After doing a bit of research it seems like one or two states does include a responsibility to act within your scope of training under the Good Samaritan Law but the majority do not.

@Cave Diver: Does that relate to scuba diving professionals, health professionals, or both?
If it includes medical professionals, I think someone or some entity (AMA?) needs to get the legal code changed.

Article 223-7 of the Latham County Penal Code was a classic example of that.

Seinfeld references are always appreciated.
By the way, having lived in Massachusetts, I realize that there are a number of strange laws on the books that are not usually enforced.

 

[rx7diver]

Is this not analogous to a person trained in CPR coming across a victim?

Lorenzoid,

To this layperson, this *is* analogous! And, in fact, I've been thinking a lot about the CPR issue lately.

I recently re-certified in CPR. I previously re-certified c. 1996, and since then I have once or twice a year reviewed my notes to stay familiar. My most recent certification taught a new approach to CPR that differs significantly from the approach I learned in 1996, an approach I have rehearsed thoroughly and learned well over the years.

During my recent certification course, my instructor discussed the several "flavors" of adult CPR currently being taught in the US, and stressed that if ever we students were to use CPR, we must make sure to use the approach taught in the certification course she was teaching us and which we would be certified to. I understood this to mean I must NOT have a lapse and use the CPR approach I was previously taught--you know, the one that essentially has become second nature to me--and I must NOT use some other CPR approach that I haven't been certified to.

Of course, now I'm concerned that in a stressful situation, I might get my CPR's confused, and I've made a bit of a cheat sheet to keep things straight in my own mind.


FWIW, I e-mailed the following to my family just after I had taken my most recent course:

"I've just completed my 4-hour American Red Cross Adult CPR course. I last did this training c. 1996. What's being taught now is significantly different from what was taught then. I encourage each of you to get current with your CPR certification. ... And, Dad, the timing of this note has absolutely nothing to do with your recently having another birthday.

"The CPR approach taught in my recent course differed from the approach taught in my c. 1996 course in several significant ways:

"1. One no longer checks for pulse. (Previously, checking for pulse, usually at the throat, was essential to maintaining the "ABC's"--airway, breathing, circulation.)

"2. One now opens the victim's airway by jaw thrust (and forehead) only. (Previously, this was taught as the alternate approach; the primary approach taught previously, placing your hand under the victim's neck to position his head, apparently caused too many spinal cord injuries.)

"3. The CPR cycle is now 30 chest compressions followed by 2 rescue breaths--for single-person CPR--at a rate of five cycles per every two minutes. (Previously, the cycle was 15 and 2.)

"4. One no longer crawls around from the chest compression position to straddle an unconscious choking victim to administer abdominal thrusts; instead, one simply continues chest compressions.

"5. One now works toward deploying an AED (automated external defibrillator) as soon as possible. We spent considerable time learning about AED's and how to deploy them. (Previously, there was no mention of AED's. Probably they were extremely rare then--if they existed at all.)

"6. Two-person CPR wasn't taught at all in my recent course.


"I was just discussing my course with a long-time scuba friend (a scuba instructor) who recently re-certified in a particular CPR course that no longer teaches rescue breathing. I told her that if I should ever require CPR, I want her to please use the old approach, including abdominal thrusts if necessary: BREATH INTO ME! I promised her I wouldn't sue if I didn't survive.

"Please get current with your CPR training. Keep in mind that if you should need to administer CPR, you should follow whatever CPR protocol you're trained/certified to."


Safe Diving,

Ronald

 

[Sortsol]

Good discussion...I'd hope that if myself or my Son were out diving and we got into trouble, a Rescue certified diver wouldn't think twice about helping one of us. One or two posts here indicate some might not help. I just received my Rescue certification a few weeks ago and would rather live the rest of my life in poverty then with the knowledge I might have been able to save a life, but chose not to for fear of being sued. (Fear for life is a different matter and thread altogether).

 

[Bubbletrubble]

"I was just discussing my course with a long-time scuba friend (a scuba instructor) who recently re-certified in a particular CPR course that no longer teaches rescue breathing. I told her that if I should ever require CPR, I want her to please use the old approach, including abdominal thrusts if necessary: BREATH INTO ME! I promised her I wouldn't sue if I didn't survive.

@rx7diver: Ummm. Part of the chest-compression-only CPR training should have included a discussion of when conventional CPR (chest compressions combined with rescue breathing) is a better course of action. Drowning is one of those special cases. Obviously, since we're scuba diving in/around water, this means that we should be doing CPR that consists of both chest compressions and rescue breaths whenever possible.

Quoted from the FAQ page on the American Heart Association's Hands-Only_TM CPR Website:

Hands-Only CPR vs. Conventional CPR with breaths
Are there times when I should use conventional CPR with breaths?

Yes. There are many medical emergencies that cause a person to be unresponsive and to stop breathing normally. In those emergencies, CPR that includes mouth-to-mouth breathing may provide more benefit than Hands-Only_TM CPR. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends conventional CPR (CPR with a combination of breaths and compressions) for:

• All infants (up to age 1)
• Children (up to age 8)
• Adult victims who are found already unconscious and not breathing normally
• Any victims of drowning, drug overdose or collapse due to breathing problems.

On a side note, I would think that a Hands-Only_TM CPR course would not satisfy the CPR requirement for a scuba instructor. I realize that your scuba instructor friend may have been taking the course for some other reason, e.g., office workplace requirement.

 

[rx7diver]

@rx7diver: Ummm. Part of the chest-compression-only CPR training should have included a discussion of when conventional CPR (chest compressions combined with rescue breathing) is a better course of action. Drowning is one of those special cases. Obviously, since we're scuba diving in/around water, this means that we should be doing CPR that consists of both chest compressions and rescue breaths whenever possible.

Bubbletrubble,

Yes, I'm aware of this. Could be my scuba instructor friend's CPR course stressed this, too. (BTW, I'm not sure whether her CPR re-certification course had anything to do with her being a scuba professional. It might have been connected to her regular job, for example.)

Safe Diving,

Ronald

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Bubbletrubble,

Yes, I'm aware of this. Could be my scuba instructor's CPR course stressed this, too. (BTW, I'm not sure whether her CPR re-certification course had anything to do with her being a scuba professional. It might have been connected to her regular job, for example.)

Safe Diving,

Ronald

@rx7diver: I'm happy to hear this. With the increasing popularity of Hands-only CPR, it's even more important all scuba divers are aware that conventional CPR is the preferred method for scuba-related incidents.

 

[wtcreaux]

Just from my observations in the medical field, I am MORE likely to be sued for what I DON'T do, rather than what I DO (barring gross negligence).

At car wrecks, I identify myself as a health care professional and ask if my assistance is needed (from FD/EMS/LE). I have never been told yes. I find this provides me with both personal/professional clear conscience (whether or not legal defense, I don't know as I am NOT a lawyer, but I have given good faith effort).

 

[Cave Diver]

@Cave Diver: Does that relate to scuba diving professionals, health professionals, or both?
If it includes medical professionals, I think someone or some entity (AMA?) needs to get the legal code changed.

The two references I found related to Minnesota and Oregon. I haven't found the exact statute for Oregon, but the relevant quote from MN was as follows:

Minnesota law:
604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW.
Subdivision 1.Duty to assist.A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

As far as I can tell, while it doesn't specifically state medical personnel, it also doesn't exclude them. Unlike most Good Samaritan laws that protect you if you choose to render aid, this one seems to impart penalties for failing to. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so the best I can provide is my layman's interpretation. I found the reference as part of a larger discussion relating to medical professionals duty to act in a "volunteer" capacity.

 

[Jax]

I think that the question would be if there is a problem and the rescue diver does not act, for which ever reason, is it liable, not for what he did, but for what he did not do ?

As Cave Diver said - unless you're a professional, you don't have a duty to act.

Herein lies a problem -- small people have very little to work with in the water. I experimented with my dive buddy after rescue class, and those of us with little mass have very, very little chance with those panicked divers of larger mass. Bottom line is that if the person is out of control, I won't do anything because I will only put myself at risk.

 

[elan]

I find this attitude disturbing to say the least. I just hope your loved one, friend, or buddy is never on a boat without you. They may end up being on one with everyone like you and if they have a problem they're screwed if that's the case. In fact if I had a student with that attitude I'd refuse to certify them if it came out during training.

Jim this attitude does not come from peoples personalities. The system is developing it. Peopme abuse it and that makes other people carefull. "no good deed goes unpunished" thats the reality of the system. I came from the country where monetary return from such cases were not worth it. The worst could be the guilty person could be put in jail. I never hesitated to help without thinking about potential problems. I became very carefull after coming to North America. Having said that i did help my friends few times to fix dislocated joints when they fell although i have no formal training but my grandmom tought me how to do it and they were thankfull. With strangers ... Big no no