Re: Accidents Witnessed

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/14/1999 20:20:31 Central Daylight Time,

legacy@... writes:

<< Subj: [texasems-L] Re: Accidents Witnessed

Date: 10/14/1999 20:20:31 Central Daylight Time

From: legacy@... ( M. Webb)

Reply-to: <A HREF= " mailto:egroups " >egroups</A>

To: egroups

> I'm not sure that the mere fact that you have a patient on board

prohibits

> your stopping in all cases. If, for example, your patient is perfectly

> stable, on the way back to the nursing home from having a new Foley put

in,

> then I don't see a problem with stopping. Every case depends upon its

own

> facts. The bottom line is to act REASONABLY under all circumstances.

Mr. Gandy,

Wouldn't stopping be considered abandonment? Unless of course the other

person on the rig could assist the victims of the accident without your

aid, or could assume care of the patient already on board?

Please don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. I am simply concerned that

by " acting reasonably " I could set myself up for a lawsuit.

Look at it from the patient on board families view point. " Uncle Bob was

on the ambulance, and it took them 45 minutes to go 5 miles. Uncle Bob

missed his lunch, and they exposed him to the (insert something bad) at the

accident. Then they charged us (insert fee) for this. He could have taken

a taxi and been in less danger. " Now, how would the lay person juror see

this?

Now, look at it from the victims families view point. " Uncle Bob got in

this wreck, and the ambulance crew helped him, but they were so

(incompetant, lazy, stupid) they had to call another ambulance to come get

him. {granted this could be explained with good PR after the call} Then

the doctor told me Uncle Bob would have lived if they had taken him to the

hospital ASAP instead of staying at the scene and waiting for the

ambulance. I mean, why didn't they just put him in back with the guy from

the nursing home and go back to the hospital. I wouldn't have killed the

guy in back to wait a little while. "

Granted, you would probably win the court case. Assuming your insurance

company didn't pay them off to avoid the court costs. But how does the TDH

feel about this? I was under the impression from my EMT and Paramedic

classes that once you had a patient on board, you had to finish the run

before you could go on another. I was also under the impression, again

from my classes, that once you were tasked to an emergency call (911 call)

that you had to respond to the assignment, bypassing all other calls

witnessed, unless you are reassigned by the dispatcher (who supposedly

knows what he/she is doing).

That is just my reasoning for my answers. So far I haven't been sued, lost

my certification (though I can see that my stupid answers on this server

might lead to that), or been fired for anything I have done in the field.

Good luck to all, and to all, goodnight!

Webb

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think you're ready for Dreamcast? Get all the news, previews and

prices at CNET.com. It’s your source for the latest and greatest

in gaming! http://clickhere./click/1157

eGroups.com home: /group/

- Simplifying group communications

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------

Return-Path: <-return-7006-wegandy=aol.comreturns (DOT) >

Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99])

by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:20:31 2000

Received: from mv. (mv. [207.138.41.150]) by

rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v61.13) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:19:30 2000

X-eGroups-Return: -return-7006-wegandy=aol.comreturns (DOT)

Received: from [10.1.2.36] by mv. with NNFMP; 15 Oct 1999

02:18:40 -0000

Mailing-List: contact -owneregroups

X-Mailing-List: egroups

X-URL: /list//

Received: (listserv 1.262); by qk; 15 Oct 1999 01:18:39 -0000

Reply-To: egroups

Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-egroups

Received: (qmail 22200 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1999 01:18:21 -0000

Received: from wave.wavecomputers.net (208.18.50.5) by qh. with

SMTP; 15 Oct 1999 01:18:21 -0000

Received: from default (rolla-port118.wavecomputers.net [208.18.50.219]) by

wave.wavecomputers.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA18804 for

<egroups>; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:20:13 -0500 (CDT)

Message-Id:

To: <egroups>

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:18:49 -0500

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Priority: 3

X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161

MIME-Version: 1.0

Subject: [texasems-L] Re: Accidents Witnessed

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>