GA Resolution: Assitance Givers Protection

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Assitance Givers Protection
A resolution to develop industry around the world.

Category: Advancement of Industry
Area of Effect: Tort Reform
Proposed by: Bergnovinaia


Description: The WA:

RECOGNIZES that in the event of an emergency, first responders and trained personnel typically handle the situation in attempt to save the person(s) in danger,

REALIZING that in certain instances, first responders may not immediately be on the scene of the emergency. Nonetheless, the emergency victims need immediate attention so passer-by step in to help,

DEFINES these passer-by as “Assistance Givers (AGs)”,

APPALLED that even after the AG’s attempt to help the emergency victims, occasionally the victims will file a civil suit against the AG’s, even if no harm was caused by the AG,

NOTES that it should be every nations right to determine if citizens can or cannot file civil suits against other citizens, organizations, or other establishments for certain reasons,

BELIEVES however, that protection against said lawsuits toward a AG should be implemented in those nations that allow civil suits,

MANDATES the following:
Article I:
1) Any AG who attempts to help an emergency victim in need shall be exempt from a civil suit towards them from the emergency victim, their family, or any person(s) or organization(s) that represent them provided the information in article 1, sections 2 and 3 are adhered to.
2) Any AG shall not attempt to help an emergency victim if a) They are unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand or b) Do not have proper training to perform any tasks that need to happen in order to help the emergency victim.
3) A AG forfeits this right if harm is caused to the emergency victim and if the emergency victim, or another other person(s) or organization(s) have viable proof that the harm was intentional.
Article II:
1) Any trained medical professional who arrives at the scene of an emergency by chance is confident that they can in some way help an emergency victim is required to help the emergency victim to the best of their ability until other trained personnel arrive.
2) If this trained medical person does not have proper apparatus and is not confident that they can improvise, they are not required to help any emergency victim if the procedure could potentially harm them.
3) All of Article 1 applies to medical professionals who are not called to an emergency scene.
Article III
1a) Requires member states to provide basic education of certain situations and first aid to those who seek it;
1b) Allows for member states to implement mandatory basic education of certain situations and first aid training for citizens to partake in.
2)The content of these courses may be determined by the nation based on common emergency situations but the following are highly encouraged: treatment of open sore wounds (i.e. gunshots), CPR, treatment of infectious poisons, and how to operate life saving equipment.

[Walabamba]

Seems like the one proposal I don't have any doubts for in a while. FOR

[Anime Daisuki]

My criticism of it is, the resolution is very US-centric and written from an AMerican point of view.

Most nations I know, does not have the problem of people suiing an accident helper because it will simply be thrown out of court.

[Echolilia]

Every time you use an apostrophe to pluralize, a kitten dies.

[Walabamba]

Thankfully, I don't do that.

[Inutoland]

I agree with everything that's been said. It's a good rule, but it is very US-centric. Only a US lawyer would see any justice in suing an untrained passer-by who's doing the best they can in an emergency situation.

[Pompadoodle]

I believe that similar things have happened in the UK. In general, if greedy people can sue, then they will sue.

First responders need legal protection. I'm FOR.

[Markanite]

Im for this resolution

[Pipotiazine]

It does now happen in England, at least. Shark lawyers sneak in and put no win, no fee, medical negligence leaflets in the health information racks in A and E departments. Bet that doesn't happen in Sweden. For.

[leapingoctopi]

I'm now a WAer but don't have permission to go and cast my vote

I vote For btw

[Ananke II]

@ Leaping Octopi; Send Grub a private message about you having joined the WA and he'll change your mask as soon as possible.

[leapingoctopi]

Thanks, will do.

[Monte Cameron]

I think the resolution is a good idea. Although, England has been moving towards the compensation culture found in the U.S., generally English case law (East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another [1940] 4 All ER 527) suggests if you do not owe a duty of care to act but you do decide to intervene, you will not be liable in Negligence even if you do act carelessly, unless you make matters worse. There are some legals tests, which would determine liability of the person providing assistance including foreseeablity.

[moncam]

With regard to medical professionals - English common law generally imposes a positive duty of care to act where there is a special relationship between the parties involved i.e. doctor to patient, teacher to student. The courts would try to determine if there was a relationship between the two.

[Kanaia]

As an EMT myself, I find a number of things troubling with this resolution.

As far as I can tell, this resolution is not protecting EMTs or First Responders working in that capacity, rather it is CPR or Basic Life Support trained civilians or off duty EMTs and First Responders only. However the resolution does not give and clear distinctions and this needs to be clarified.

"Any AG shall not attempt to help an emergency victim if a) They are unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand"

Many times in emergency situations what actually occurred before the care giver arrives is unknown. For example you see a man lying down in the middle of the street, he is now unconscious, you do not know if this is because he is drunk, received blunt force trauma to the head, had a stroke, simply enjoys lying in the street etc. However there are a number of things a trained individual can do to help the individual and/or gain more information about the individual's condition. I find this part of the resolution greatly ties the hands of any "Assistance Giver". Furthermore, even if there are witnesses to an incident, one can get very different accounts from individuals and would therefore qualify as "unsure of what actually occurred in the situation at hand".

"A AG forfeits this right if harm is caused to the emergency victim and if the emergency victim, or another other person(s) or organization(s) have viable proof that the harm was intentional."

This sentence really needs to be "A AG forfeits this right if harm is INTENTIONALLY caused to the emergency victim..." Sometimes things simply do not go as you expect them to, and despite your best efforts you cause a problem.

"The content of these courses may be determined by the nation based on common emergency situations but the following are highly encouraged: treatment of open sore wounds (i.e. gunshots), CPR, treatment of infectious poisons, and how to operate life saving equipment."

CPR and AEDs("life saving equipment") should be taught to laypeople, however trauma should be left to the professionals. Also, there is no such thing as an "infectious poison" infections are caused by bacteria and viruses, poisons are toxic chemicals, which again should generally be left to professionals, better would be the establishment of a poison control hotline.

My biggest problem with this resolution is the fact that it utterly fails to have individuals who come across an emergency situation contact emergency services. This is truly the most important thing a lay person can do to help people in need of emergency medical care.

If this resolution passes I fully intend to repeal it, and would appreciate the help of some of the more experienced WA writers in 10KI.

[Pizmo Beach]

I feel like a broken record.

This is an issue to be dealt with by individual nations. The international community has absolutely no right to interfere in policies which have nothing to do with international relations.

QED

[Anime Daisuki]

Aug 4, 2010 21:30:40 GMT -5 Kanaia said:

If this resolution passes I fully intend to repeal it, and would appreciate the help of some of the more experienced WA writers in 10KI.

I am looking forward to help smuggle a sentence that glorify Anime in there.

[-Valoniah-]

I'm voting against this one. I'm in class and don't have time to type my reasons. But i saw ananke's post on the rmb and wanted to help her out.

[ImperialPoland]

against

this proposal is just idiotic, it has nothing to do with international issues...waste of time

[Echolilia]

Well said.

[Coltonians]

Well I like it! FOR!

[Takaram]

For a variety of reasons, against.