|
|
Post by youonlywish on Oct 6, 2010 18:49:32 GMT -5
Was just thinking - albiet with the aid of a good thinker - a sheepdog that is lacking in training, either in defense, medical, emotional or otherwise...
Could quickly become a risk-factor for those professionals eventually responding on-site - or even those people you're trying to help...
For instance - if you're trying to give first aid - but you don't have an updated first aid ticket - you could be doing something seriously wrong, in the eyes of the law or worse yet - the victim.
In the mean time, I'm going to try to figure out a way to incorperate some sort of identifier on the boards here - for those with specific training - even as a relay to others wanting the same degree of training.
Stay tuned and keep safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer550 on Oct 6, 2010 22:53:21 GMT -5
For instance - if you're trying to give first aid - but you don't have an updated first aid ticket - you could be doing something seriously wrong, in the eyes of the law or worse yet - the victim. althought definetly an issue in the USA i'm not sure what kind of trouble trying to help someone and being slightly behind in the latest practices would get you into up here in the North. |
|
|
|
Post by arnisador on Oct 8, 2010 0:00:50 GMT -5
Just completed a first-aid refresher for work a couple months ago. Legal liability was discussed. Something of note...in Quebec and many parts of Europe, apparently you can be charged if you have first aid training and do not offer assistance.
In the rest of Canada, you have no obligation to use your skills if you feel you are at risk (eg you don't have your mask to administer mouth to mouth and the person has bloody sores on his mouth).
If however, you do act with the best intentions and to the best of your ability, you will not be held liable for trying to save someone's life.
I havn't personally verified this claim, but if anyone else knows definitively, I'd love to know.
|
|
swirv
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by swirv on Oct 8, 2010 7:20:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by arnisador on Oct 8, 2010 15:50:17 GMT -5
I've taken the St. John's FA training for several years. For whatever reason, this year our training was done through Red Cross.
CPR changes almost every year. In this version, only 2 breaths followed by 30 compressions as it was deemed that the compressions were more efficient at deliving O2 in the bloodstream instead of the breaths. Having said that though, our instructor told us unofficially, that it may change again next year to 2 breaths per 15 compressions as a DIFFERENT report stated different results. It was mentioned that there are also proponents who advocate only the compressions.
Long and short was...if trying to save a person's life (esp if unconscious/unresponsive) we go in with a mindset that if given the choice, a person would want his life saved instead of being left to expire. This was the basis of our discussion on the legal implications. Our instructor said that some effort is better than none at all, but once you engage, you must continue until help arrives or you fall over from exhaustion.
Also mentioned that aid could be as simple as calling 911 on your cell (eg for a conscious casualty who refuses help) and stay close until they fall unconscious. THEN you move in with implied consent.
|
|
