Opinion: The good Samaritans

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

If we stand a chance of being sued and losing all we have, would we still step forward to save someone else’s life?

Today the editorial board heartily praises state legislation that would protect good Samaritans from liability if they are sued for acting to rescue someone in danger. It does indeed go very far toward shielding them, but it also introduces exceptions for gross negligence by the rescuer, and willful and wanton misconduct.

The other thing the legislation does is apply those same exceptions to good Samaritans who provide medical care at the scene of an emergency. Those people now have blanket protection as long as they are acting in good faith.

I would never excuse intentional misconduct toward another person, but as a volunteer in a wilderness park who leads people on hikes, I can’t help being concerned about the ‘gross-negligence’ phrase. The volunteers in my program take a yearly class in CPR and wilderness first aid. We’re better prepared than most people to respond to a variety of the more common emergencies, but we’re also more likely to come across those emergencies. The wilderness has inherent dangers; in addition, people’s ailments, such as heart problems, asthma or serious allergies, are more likely to be tested on the trail. Usually, it will take longer for paramedics to reach us if there is a problem. And yet, we’re far from experts.

There are always a lot of questions in class about our liability. We’re also taught some of the less common methods of treating emergencies, such as compression-only CPR (no mouth-to-mouth resuscitation), and use of Superglue to close some wounds (there’s a much more expensive FDA-approved version that’s generally considered safer). The legal bar for gross negligence is high, but the loss of total protection from liability also means the chances are greater that a case will at least go to trial. And once there, even if the rescuers win, they lose, because the costs of an attorney are financially crippling.

I like to think we’d all act to save first and think about our liability later, but I wonder. Certainly there would be hesitation about performing any procedure at which people didn’t feel pretty competent. At moments of doubt, we freeze; the good Sam law keeps us from freeezing. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe not.