Good Samaritan Law: Its Concept

¶ … Good Samaritan Law: Its Concept and Implications to Health Care The Good Samaritan Law stipulates that Any person who, in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance." (Barton, 2004, Good Samaritan Laws and AEDs, par.11) It encourages individuals to come to the aid of those who need assistance during emergency situations without doubting if there are legal implications of their actions.

During the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski argued that the purpose of the Bill 214 or the Good Samaritan Protection Act is to encourage rescuers to assist the victims because the act removes some of the risks of liability. She stated that the intention is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need of fear of legal repercussions if they make some mistake in the rescue attempt or in the treatment.

The idea is that, by providing some coverage with liability, we will encourage people to come forward and help others." (Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, Second Reading, Public Bills, par. 25) The website of Massachusetts Law about Health Care specifies individuals who are immune from civil liability for providing emergency care.

Based on Section 12V of Chapter 112 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, "any person who is trained according to the standards and guidelines of the American Heart Association or the American National Red Cross in cardiopulmonary resuscitation or the use of semi-automatic or automatic external defibrillators or any person who has successfully met the training requirements of a course in basic cardiac life support, conducted according to the standards established by the American Heart Association is exempted from civil liability." Moreover, in Section 21, Chapter IIIC, certified emergency medical technicians will not be held liable if they render service during emergency.

It should be noted that the scope and limitations of the Good Samaritan Law vary from each state. In West Virginia, the Good Samaritan Law applies to medical and non-medical trained people who render emergency care to the victim provided that he/she did not charge the victim and that it is rendered in good faith. In Pennsylvania, the law does not apply to non-medically trained individual who rendered emergency service.

In the District of Columbia, individuals who do not have a medical license to assist during emergency is immune from civil liability if they handover the victim to a licensed medical person. Both the physician and the paramedic are not held liable during emergency situation unless it is proven that negligence in handling the victim was committed and that they charge the patient for their service.

Although the scope and limitations of the law vary from each state, it is noted that the common variables in implementing this law include the absence of remuneration in rendering service during emergency situations, positive, good-faith effort for helping the victim, and promptness and propriety of actions while delivering the service.

And because the provisions of the law differs for each state, it is imperative to know and to understand the coverage of Good Samaritan Law in each state to know if future actions will make a person liable to existing moral and civil laws.

There has been a good amount of debate as to the scope and limitations of the Good Samaritan Law especially in ensuring that the lives of the victims are actually secured and saved in the hands of the rescuers and as to what extent will the law be applicable. Kelly a.

Wagner of Connecticut Law Tribune has written in an article entitled Good Samaritan Statute Under Scrutiny that a patient dies because of the Turkey sandwich given to her while she was on board with the paramedics while going to the hospital. It was found out that the patient has no teeth or salivary glands, which led to the choking of the patient. It was argued that the paramedics should have known the medical condition of the patient. The situation then could have been avoided.

The suspect's attorney argued that the employees do not have any civil liability because the Good Samaritan Law covered what happened. The law, which was passed in 1963, offers immunity from liability for dentists, school personnel, police, firemen, EMTs and others who provide emergency medical assistance or first aid during a crisis. (Wagner, 2002, Good Samaritan Statute Under Scrutiny, par. 14).

The final verdict was in favor of the victim because the court found out that there was failure in rendering proper care to the patient and the incident happened while the paramedics were performing their duties. There are also moral and ethical implications of the Good Samaritan Law. A physician who is not in emergency call during the time of the accident which also happened outside the hospital is not required to assist the victim whom he/she has not yet established any patient-physician relationship with.

Although, the Good Samaritan Law exempts him from helping the victim, non-assistance in the part of the physician contradicts and breaches the Code of Medical Ethics. The website of Medi-Smart states that the American Medical Association Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs Opinion 8.11, "Neglect of Patients," specifies that, although physicians are free to choose whom to serve, they should "respond to the best of their ability in cases of emergency where first aid.