Not assisting a dying person
Discussion
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
There was a case in Scotland a few years back where a woman died as a result of having to wait for an ambulance. The one nearest wouldn't attend as the crew were on their break, the woman died while waiting for the ambulance from the next nearest town.
The ambulance crew who were on their (legally mandated) break didn't even know about the emergency. They didn't refuse to attend at all!Please don't believe everything the media tells you
Yeah I'll take the BBC over someone with 5 posts on here.
FGB said:
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
There was a case in Scotland a few years back where a woman died as a result of having to wait for an ambulance. The one nearest wouldn't attend as the crew were on their break, the woman died while waiting for the ambulance from the next nearest town.
The ambulance crew who were on their (legally mandated) break didn't even know about the emergency. They didn't refuse to attend at all!Please don't believe everything the media tells you
Yeah I'll take the BBC over someone with 5 posts on here.
If the paramedic in the article had opted for a non-disturbed break (bearing in mind he's not actually paid for that break), then he wouldn't have even known that there was a job ongoing. I fail to see anywhere in any of the articles on this subject where it states that the paramedic was contacted by ambulance control and subsequently refused. I see a lot of ill informed conjecture on the subject though.
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
There was a case in Scotland a few years back where a woman died as a result of having to wait for an ambulance. The one nearest wouldn't attend as the crew were on their break, the woman died while waiting for the ambulance from the next nearest town.
The ambulance crew who were on their (legally mandated) break didn't even know about the emergency. They didn't refuse to attend at all!Please don't believe everything the media tells you
Yeah I'll take the BBC over someone with 5 posts on here.
If the paramedic in the article had opted for a non-disturbed break (bearing in mind he's not actually paid for that break), then he wouldn't have even known that there was a job ongoing. I fail to see anywhere in any of the articles on this subject where it states that the paramedic was contacted by ambulance control and subsequently refused. I see a lot of ill informed conjecture on the subject though.
Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
Devil2575 said:
I imagine that bit has Mail/Express/Sun readers frothing at the mouth with rage, even more so if the enemy soldier is not white 
They may be, it's not where I was coming from though, just genuinely surprised that rules of engagement or convention can mean you may have to prioritise treating an injured enemy.TwigtheWonderkid said:
The copper told me my attitude was disgusting, but I replied telling him it wasn't a crime to be glad someone had died. He did admit that my unbridled glee at the victims demise ruled me out as a suspect! The murderer would pretend to be shocked and upset.
So there's a tip if you plan to murder someone. When you are questioned, say you're glad he's dead.
That seems fairly logical to me. If I intentionally popped someone off I'd stick as close to the truth as possible, as it's an easier fib to carry off.So there's a tip if you plan to murder someone. When you are questioned, say you're glad he's dead.
This subject was news some years ago with regard to whether the person assisting could be laying themselves open to prosecution after the event if their help could be deemed to have made the situation worse.
I am fairly sure there has been at least one prosecution brought against a 'helper' by members of the injured's family here.
I am fairly sure there has been at least one prosecution brought against a 'helper' by members of the injured's family here.
Riley Blue said:
How could you make the situation worse when someone has stopped breathing?
Is the average member of the public competent to make a basic medical assesssment of the condition of the patient or provide suitable assistance? The extent of their knowledge will probably have come from something like Coronation Street.Depends entirely on the circumstances.
As mentioned, whether to remove a crash helmet requires some thought and consideration that will not occur to most of the public.
When someone has stopped breathing, any action is likely to be better for them than no action.
http://www.sja.org.uk/sja/first-aid-advice/loss-of...
http://www.redcross.org.uk/What-we-do/First-aid/Ev...
http://www.sja.org.uk/sja/first-aid-advice/loss-of...
http://www.redcross.org.uk/What-we-do/First-aid/Ev...
FGB said:
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
Pompeymedic said:
FGB said:
There was a case in Scotland a few years back where a woman died as a result of having to wait for an ambulance. The one nearest wouldn't attend as the crew were on their break, the woman died while waiting for the ambulance from the next nearest town.
The ambulance crew who were on their (legally mandated) break didn't even know about the emergency. They didn't refuse to attend at all!Please don't believe everything the media tells you
Yeah I'll take the BBC over someone with 5 posts on here.
If the paramedic in the article had opted for a non-disturbed break (bearing in mind he's not actually paid for that break), then he wouldn't have even known that there was a job ongoing. I fail to see anywhere in any of the articles on this subject where it states that the paramedic was contacted by ambulance control and subsequently refused. I see a lot of ill informed conjecture on the subject though.
Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
If you are on a break (or doing anything else when on duty) you absolutely cannot refuse to attend an emergency unless you are on an un-disturbable break, in which case you are not told about emergencies in your area.
One or other. No one can be allocated an emergency but choose not to go.
Also that story is from before the Scottish Ambulance Service changed its meal break policy. Now everyone is paid for their breaks and so can be sent to emergencies during all breaks, which has arguably reduced patient care and has definitely reduced working conditions for the staff.
Edited by JumboBeef on Sunday 27th November 08:55
JumboBeef said:
Er, yes, EVERYONE knows what went on.
If you are on a break (or doing anything else when on duty) you absolutely cannot refuse to attend an emergency unless you are on an un-disturbable break, in which can you are not told about emergencies in your area.
One or other. No one can be allocated an emergency but choose not to go.
This story suggests that in some cases staff are told about incidents when they are on breaks. If you are on a break (or doing anything else when on duty) you absolutely cannot refuse to attend an emergency unless you are on an un-disturbable break, in which can you are not told about emergencies in your area.
One or other. No one can be allocated an emergency but choose not to go.
Cat
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Devil2575 said:
I imagine that bit has Mail/Express/Sun readers frothing at the mouth with rage, even more so if the enemy soldier is not white
They may be, it's not where I was coming from though, just genuinely surprised that rules of engagement or convention can mean you may have to prioritise treating an injured enemy.Cat said:
Again, pre new meal break policy. Also, I know that case every well. He was on an unpaid rest break and control called him when they shouldn't have. They asked him if he was on a break (they should have know anyway) and when he said yes, they finished the call without tasking him to the job.
There is so much more to that story than reported.
Edited by JumboBeef on Sunday 27th November 09:50
Devil2575 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Devil2575 said:
I imagine that bit has Mail/Express/Sun readers frothing at the mouth with rage, even more so if the enemy soldier is not white
They may be, it's not where I was coming from though, just genuinely surprised that rules of engagement or convention can mean you may have to prioritise treating an injured enemy.When I first joined it was "Breathing, bleeding, breaks then burns" and later it was ABC - Airway, Breathing, Circulation. Or whatever other clever new set of letters someone decided was trendy at the time.
The video I'm thinking about dated from the seventies or eighties, and even had one scene where an enemy combatant was being treated in a field hospital. The dialogue was terrible, acted, as it was, by serving soldiers and their families. Bear in mind I was forced to watch it at least 24 times, and I can remember the scene - a squaddie burst in to the operating theatre tent supporting his injured mate. The injured man is clearly wounded, but vertical and capable of walking with assistance. The squaddie says something along the lines of "what's he doing in here, he's an enemy soldier. Get him out of here." Then he's ejected by the medics, and even admonished about bringing a weapon into the hospital. Very simplistic, and badly acted in a "so bad it's great comedy" way - but the messages stayed with you which is probably why it remained in use for so long.
I can't seem to find a copy of the British film online, but here's an old US Air Force film on the same subject... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heGUqiHS9Wk ...watch from about 8:45 for the treatment of wounded. It's drier than the British film, narrated over actual film of actual war rather than comically poor scripts and staged situations, and it's less explicit about the treatment priorities. But it does still say "In short, enemy sick and wounded, whether soldiers or civilians, are entitled to be treated and protected in the same manner as your own sick and wounded". It stems from the desire to have your wounded prisoners treated at least as well as the enemies own wounded - you have to have a reciprocal arrangement else there's no discernible benefit to either party and we descend to being savages. Hence why all the treaties that form the Geneva convention. It doesn't always work, like the way RAF prisoners were treated by the Saddam Hussein regime in 1990/1991. But by being above vindictive mistreatment of their prisoners is the only way to demonstrate to 'rogue states' that there really is a real benefit to playing by a vaguely civilised set of rules even when you're fighting a war.
cmaguire said:
Is the average member of the public competent to make a basic medical assesssment of the condition of the patient or provide suitable assistance? The extent of their knowledge will probably have come from something like Coronation Street.
Depends entirely on the circumstances.
As mentioned, whether to remove a crash helmet requires some thought and consideration that will not occur to most of the public.
I would hope that the very least someone would do is dial 999 for an ambulance, and then the ambulance service can give instruction over the phone as to how to proceed. So no, it doesn't depend on the circumstances. If someone is dying, there will always be someway that you can assist, even if its just dialling 999.Depends entirely on the circumstances.
As mentioned, whether to remove a crash helmet requires some thought and consideration that will not occur to most of the public.
FGB said:
Nobody knows what went on but his colleague attended and he didn't.
Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
We must be reading a different news article then. I can see that the paramedic was at the base and some colleagues who may also have been at that base attended. Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
I can see where it says everyone at the base knows what everyone else is doing even when they are on a break and I can't see where it says the paramedic was informed of the incident at the time.
creampuff said:
FGB said:
Nobody knows what went on but his colleague attended and he didn't.
Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
We must be reading a different news article then. I can see that the paramedic was at the base and some colleagues who may also have been at that base attended. Its reasonable to assume the he was fully aware of the call and decided his break was more important to him than attending a call 300 meters down the road.
I can see where it says everyone at the base knows what everyone else is doing even when they are on a break and I can't see where it says the paramedic was informed of the incident at the time.
An ambulance from around 20 miles away, and a helicopter attended the patient.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff