Previous Post: The C-Spine Immobilization Controversy   Next Post: The E-Book is Coming!

Regarding The Duty To Act

A while back, when I wrote about the duty to act, I emphasized the idea that the duty to act only extends to “on-duty” medical personnel. In fact, my exact words were,

“If you are a trained medical professional and you are acting with an expectation of compensation you have a duty to act appropriately and within the scope of your training when called to assist with an emergency situation.”

I figured I should emphasize the idea that trained EMTs don’t have a duty to act when they aren’t being compensated for their services. This seemed to be the point of greatest confusion. I never thought much about making it clear that while you are on duty, working as an EMT, you are required to act.

I know … it seems painfully obvious. I thought so too. But over the past few weeks, there have just been a slew of stories that seem to fly in the face of the obvious.

First, there was the strange story of the UK paramedic who watched his EMT partner deliver a non-breathing child, didn’t call for any assistance, then watched her try to resuscitate the child. To his credit, he did drive her to the hospital while she continued the resuscitation attempt in the back.

Then there was the story of the Atlanta man who was gunned down trying to prevent a burglary. Video surveillance shows paramedics and firefighters on scene glanced at him over the counter but never assessed him or made any attempt to resuscitate.

Now we have the two Florida firefighters who decided to skip responding to a medical call so the Lieutenant could coach his kid’s soccer game. When the call turned out to be an actual medical emergency (try not to look too shocked) the understaffed ladder truck was left at the scene so firefighters could ride in the back of the medic unit.

So here we are back at the duty to act, talking about something that I thought to be far too obvious when I originally wrote about the legal tenant. But maybe it’s worth making this clear.

When you are an EMT and you are being compensated for your services, you do have a duty to act. You have a legal obligation to respond to the individuals who call for your assistance. You are obligated to treat them appropriately according to your training and experience. And if you fail in that duty it can have disastrous consequences.

The kind of consequences that put your face on CNN and have your grandmother calling from Calgary to ask what happened.

There’s an easy way to avoid that possibility. When people call for help, help them. Help people the way you were trained to help people. Help people the way you’re paid to help them. Help people the way you would want to be helped, if your baby was delivered at home without a pulse, or you were shot in a convenience store, or you called for help while the local fire truck was coaching a kids’ soccer game.

Take care of people that way and you won’t have to ever worry about the duty to act.

        

What do you think? Is there any plausible reason for responders to do these things? What gets in to people’s heads? Leave a comment below and tell me what you think of all this.

       

Related Articles:

What is The Duty to Act?

What is The Good Samaritan Law?

The C-spine Immobilization Controversy

The Oklahoma State Trooper vs. EMS Mess

Tags: code of ethics, duty, duty to act, duty to rescue, emt ethics, ethics, good samaritan, good samaritan law, legal, naemt