Refusing CPR

[mrsCALoki]

i just re-read the story in tor star and they don't mention DNR. just that the home policy is to provide no medical care or intervention. that policy may need review altho it may also mean more qualified personnel and hence, higher costs. the part where they sign agreement on entering the home is kinda fishy. if it's like here, rooms in homes are tough to find. it's almost signing under duress. (almost).

Without facts, it is just speculation. In the video her daughter said she supported what happened. So I sort of assume she is more aware of the facts than I am.

Rooms in homes in US are not hard to find. You just need to find one that matches your needs, desires, and finances.

 

[mrsCALoki]

I guess you didn't read post#7. Perhaps its the way you write - as if you are without a doubt the definitive expert in US emergency health care law . Hard to believe CNN didn't just phone you there on the boat for you opinion. Perhaps you don't mean to sound like that.

Gee I have to admit I did not look up the CNN commentary. I spent several years in NY state and went to school there. Pretty much all stuff I learnt in first year. Pretty much common knowledge and anyone paying attention in any approved first responded training gets to hear it. Of course I guess some people do not pay attention or do not bother getting first responder (i.e. the first aid in the 21st century) training.

I guess based on your sarcasm you fall into the no training category or the no attention category?

 

[colt]

I am guessing that there was a lot more to this than is available from the video.

Re the good Samaritan act etc

1) It depends on the jurisdiction.
2) In US and Canada if you are following the directions of a 911 operator you are not liable.
3) If you do not take any action you are NOT liable
4) If you do not ask first and get permission (or the person is unable to respond) you do become liable.
5) If you have no training and on your own decide to do something that hurts the person, you are liable (e.g. moving someone with spinal trauma) you become liable.
6) If you have received training and follow that training you are pretty much ok

I cannot comment on any aspect of US law but I can say that, in Canada, whether you are following the directions of a 911 operator is not a sole, governing factor with respect to liability. Given mrsCALoki's exemplary research skills I am sure she can point me to an authoritative citation that proves me wrong.

 

[Aardvark154]

I am guessing that there was a lot more to this than is available from the video.

1) DNRs are common. As individuals many people have them. Loki used to have one in his living will until I insisted he remove it and we bought a defib.
2) Facilities in the US often have a blanket DNR policy that residents agree to.
3) The video blurp said the woman's daughter was a nurse and supported the facilities actions (sounds a lot like a DNR).


Re the good Samaritan act etc

1) It depends on the jurisdiction.
2) In US and Canada if you are following the directions of a 911 operator you are not liable.
3) If you do not take any action you are NOT liable
4) If you do not ask first and get permission (or the person is unable to respond) you do become liable.
5) If you have no training and on your own decide to do something that hurts the person, you are liable (e.g. moving someone with spinal trauma) you become liable.
6) If you have received training and follow that training you are pretty much ok

Well points 1-3 are true. Point 4 may be true in the State of New York, however it is not universally true, points 5 and 6 are true in some places but not others.

There is no general duty to rescue, Quebec is a exception to this rule, however, I'm not discussing the various exceptions to this where there is such a duty, (such as spouses). Despite Good Samaritan laws - once you start to rescue you must continue to act with reasonable care - in other words you can not start to rescue a drowning person swim out to them and then say - oh the Hell with it and - swim back to shore. If however you try to save them and they still drown you are covered. Also imminent peril may apply (e.g. there is a car crash no leaking gas, no risk of fire - you drag the person out through the window and paralyze them) you may be liable since there was no imminent peril.


Ontario's law which is fairly typical reads in part:

"2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection* is not liable for damages that result from the person’s negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1)


* who provides emergency first aid assistance to a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency, if the individual provides the assistance at the immediate scene of the accident or emergency. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (2)."

It applies not only to a physician on their way to go skating, but also to a school teacher on their way to a hockey game.


It is worth noting that neither New Brunswick or Nunavut have Good Samaritan laws.

_______________

Now as to this incident:


A significant factor to note is that this is an area of state (and provincial) not federal law.

In this instance the woman does not appear to have had a DNR order in effect

As many people have posted the "retirement community" had a policy of "letting you lie."

Related to the above point California apparently has an exception to their "Good Samaritan" law regarding those who are working in the capacity of their profession.

An investigation has been launched, but it does not appear there was a violation of law.

However, related to the above point, and as can be seen by this whole thread, there certainly was a loss of basic humanity.

 

[Rockslinger]

An investigation has been launched, but it does not appear there was a violation of law.However, related to the above point, and as can be seen by this whole thread, there certainly was a loss of basic humanity.

Policy or no policy, I suspect that nurse would have performed CPR if the elderly woman was her mother. I know I would in a heartbeat.

 

[Aardvark154]

It, I must say Rockslinger is the first flat out refusal to perform CPR I've heard of absent a DNR.

By the way a plug not such much for TERBites but parents etc. . . if you don't wish for them to perform CPR as a standard practice for the love of God have a DNR, and have a Medical Power of Attorney (Healthcare Proxy) on file at all the needed places (hospital, ambulance service, physician's office etc. . .).

 

[mrsCALoki]

1) It depends on the jurisdiction.
2) In US and Canada if you are following the directions of a 911 operator you are not liable.
3) If you do not take any action you are NOT liable
4) If you do not ask first and get permission (or the person is unable to respond) you do become liable.
5) If you have no training and on your own decide to do something that hurts the person, you are liable (e.g. moving someone with spinal trauma) you become liable.
6) If you have received training and follow that training you are pretty much ok

Well points 1-3 are true. Point 4 may be true in the State of New York, however it is not universally true, points 5 and 6 are true in some places but not others.

There is no general duty to rescue, Quebec is a exception to this rule, however, I'm not discussing the various exceptions to this where there is such a duty, (such as spouses). Despite Good Samaritan laws - once you start to rescue you must continue to act with reasonable care - in other words you can not start to rescue a drowning person swim out to them and then say - oh the Hell with it and - swim back to shore. If however you try to save them and they still drown you are covered. Also imminent peril may apply (e.g. there is a car crash no leaking gas, no risk of fire - you drag the person out through the window and paralyze them) you may be liable since there was no imminent peril.

I would never argue a point of law with Aardvark.

I believe that it might add value to point out that even jurisdictions that have Good Samaritan laws almost always have a clause the limits the law with something like “unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence”. #6, assuming it is recognized training and you are current seems to be the gold standard for case law, so I believe it is a safe general statement . I know it is in several jurisdictions.

#5 I could have phrased better. But moving a person with a potential spinal injury “to make them more comfortable” has been found to be gross negligence in case law in some jurisdiction. Stupidity is not a good defense.

#4 is part of medical training in NY state. To treat a conscious, mentally-competent adult you need their permission or a court order.

Hubby had to renew his ‘first aid / CPR’ qualification to maintain his part time faculty status and he dragged me along. During the training and the drills it was stressed to first identify yourself, your qualification as a “trained first responder” and get permission before proceeding (unconscious adults are assumed to have given it). So I suspect # 3 applies in Ontario. Just a belief though, I did not research it.

 

[mrsCALoki]

It, I must say Rockslinger is the first flat out refusal to perform CPR I've heard of absent a DNR.

By the way a plug not such much for TERBites but parents etc. . . if you don't wish for them to perform CPR as a standard practice for the love of God havein o a DNR, and have a Medical Power of Attorney (Healthcare Proxy) on file at all the needed places (hospital, ambulance service, physician's office etc. . .).

Pure supposition on my part...... but I know of one long care facility that has a "no medical assistance from staff" form residents must sign in order to be admitted.

By the way, might mention that if your spouse keels over NOT providing care is against the law unless there is a living will.

 

[versitile1]

Even imaginary spouses?

 

[colt]

1) Hubby had to renew his ‘first aid / CPR’ qualification to maintain his part time faculty status and he dragged me along.

Yeah, I'm calling b.s. that there is any university in Canada that requires adjuncts (outside of a pharmacy or medical faculty) to be first aid/CPF qualified. Of course, maybe you are talking about an American university.

 

[Petzel]

It, I must say Rockslinger is the first flat out refusal to perform CPR I've heard of absent a DNR.

By the way a plug not such much for TERBites but parents etc. . . if you don't wish for them to perform CPR as a standard practice for the love of God have a DNR, and have a Medical Power of Attorney (Healthcare Proxy) on file at all the needed places (hospital, ambulance service, physician's office etc. . .).

You can always have a "living will" done.

 

[basketcase]

It, I must say Rockslinger is the first flat out refusal to perform CPR I've heard of absent a DNR.
...

I guess the question comes down to exactly what the 'nurses' in the home were. If they were actual nurses who were properly trained and working as nurses, it seems strange. If they were home care workers that the home called 'nurses' to make the place sound better it would be different.


As an aside, the last time I was trained, they told us that with a stoppage caused by heart disease, CPR alone has a 0% success rate. Survival requires drugs and a defibrillator/AED (which an old age home should have IMO) within the first 10/15 minutes to get the heart re-started. CPR just keeps the blood circulating until paramedics can get there.

 

[Rockslinger]

a defibrillator/AED (which an old age home should have IMO) within the first 10/15 minutes to get the heart re-started.

I was wondering if that home had a heart defibrillator, and if they did, why wasn't it used? BTW: Our local hockey rink has a defibrillator named "MIKEY".

 

[mrsCALoki]

Yeah, I'm calling b.s. that there is any university in Canada that requires adjuncts (outside of a pharmacy or medical faculty) to be first aid/CPF qualified. Of course, maybe you are talking about an American university.

Well it was at Bloor and Spadina and was a WSIB Approved Red Cross First Aid & CPR Course. And he said he needed it to maintain his faculty status. I do not think I asked or cared about which Faculty required it. I guess I can ask if you really care that much.

 

[Smash]

Looks like the family will have one hell of a lawsuit against that home.

I doubt it. At the end of the newscast the reporter states that the womens daughter spoke to them and said that "she was satisfied with the care her mother received at the facility"

 

[colt]

Well it was at Bloor and Spadina and was a WSIB Approved Red Cross First Aid & CPR Course. And he said he needed it to maintain his faculty status. I do not think I asked or cared about which Faculty required it. I guess I can ask if you really care that much.

Knock yourself out but don't be afraid to apply a little of your famous research skills before you dig too big a hole with this particular lie. Specifically check out R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1101, Formerly Under the Worker's Compensation Act and the first aid requirements for an employer employing 15-200 employers. And then apply a little common sense and ask why an employer would bother making it mandatory for a part-time employee, who is only present when classes are in session, to be first-aid/cpr qualified.

But by all means, fry the internet searching for some faculty at some university that actually requires its adjuncts to be first aid/cpr qualified.

 

[mrsCALoki]

Was the resident conscious? Did the resident refuse aid? Here in Canada (I imagine it's the same in the U.S.) a first aider must have the permission of the ailing person in order to be able to assist them (unless of course if that person is unconscious). Sounds like many key elements of your story are missing.

I just listened to the tape video again. Did you notice the woman was "barely breathing" and was "stopping breathing" ? Interesting. Heart had to be still beating. Lungs still working. I wonder why CPR was appropriate? Seems at most ventilation might be useful? But hey way too many facts missing to know what is really going on.

 

[great bear]

Knock yourself out but don't be afraid to apply a little of your famous research skills before you dig too big a hole with this particular lie. Specifically check out R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1101, Formerly Under the Worker's Compensation Act and the first aid requirements for an employer employing 15-200 employers. And then apply a little common sense and ask why an employer would bother making it mandatory for a part-time employee, who is only present when classes are in session, to be first-aid/cpr qualified.

But by all means, fry the internet searching for some faculty at some university that actually requires its adjuncts to be first aid/cpr qualified.

Colt, you do realize she/he/it will now suggest you are not qualified to question her/his/its posts?

 

[mrsCALoki]

Knock yourself out but don't be afraid to apply a little of your famous research skills before you dig too big a hole with this particular lie. Specifically check out R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1101, Formerly Under the Worker's Compensation Act and the first aid requirements for an employer employing 15-200 employers. And then apply a little common sense and ask why an employer would bother making it mandatory for a part-time employee, who is only present when classes are in session, to be first-aid/cpr qualified.

But by all means, fry the internet searching for some faculty at some university that actually requires its adjuncts to be first aid/cpr qualified.

hun, did I say university in that post?

 

[great bear]

hun, did I say university in that post?

You said universal and thought the discussion centered around autos.