Oregon's Samaritan law protects those who perform CPR
The nurse who refused to perform CPR on an 87-year-old woman at a California independent living facility did so out of fear of being sued.
In the Portland metro area, 911 dispatchers say people opt not to perform CPR more often than you would think.
Thanks to the state’s good Samaritan law, however, you can’t be sued for trying to save someone’s life as long as you follow medical procedures.
Holly Burback, a Clackamas County dispatcher for 22 years, said she has dealt with people refusing to give CPR for various reasons.
“A woman called and said her husband was unconscious, not breathing. It hadn’t been that long,” Burback said. “I asked her if she was willing to do CPR. She said no. He was adamant about me not doing anything for him.”
It used to be more common that people refused performing CPR when mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was involved.
“A lot of people (were) uneasy doing mouth-to-mouth with a stranger,” said Mark Spross, Clackamas County 911 communications manager. “Very rare, but we have had instances where someone refused CPR.”
Burback said in those situations, they keep asking the callers, “Are you sure you don’t want to help? I can help you through it.” Sometimes those folks change their minds.
Officials say when it comes to facilities with policies in place, dispatchers will tell callers to follow their company’s procedures. And that won’t stop dispatchers from trying to find someone else to help until paramedics arrive.
California state officials did not know Monday whether the woman who talked to the 911 dispatcher actually was a nurse, or just identified herself as one during the call. She said one of the home's policies prevented her from doing CPR, according to an audio recording of the call.
"The consensus is if they are a nurse and if they are at work as a nurse, then they should be offering the appropriate medical care," said Russ Heimerich, spokesman for the California Board of Registered Nursing, the agency that licenses health care providers.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This version corrects the facility in California was an independent living facility, not an assisted living facility.
Most retirement centers are this way. My aunt lives in a very nice one. On the retirement centers bus one day on an outing a lady tripped and fell. She was not hurt but the driver told her he was not allowed to touch her and would call 911. Two other retirees on the bus helped the lady up and she was fine. Sad state of affairs.
Considering that the approved CRP methods have changed twice in recent years, someone could still (and will) be sued for not following the latest incarnation.
There is a humanity law. Â If you see someone that you can help, yet do not, you are not a good person.
Spare me the "might lose her job" or "not in policy". Â You will just rot in hell.
It's real nice that Oregon has a Good Samaritan law...but this was California.
They have their own set of laws...
@MikeyÂ
I think this story came up because people saw the story about California and then wondered what the rules/laws were here in Oregon.
I think this is a good thing we need more these past Good Samaritan laws are important.
Was there a DNR in place? 911 has no right to insist CPR be done. Generally nurses do things for a reason. I would not do mouth to mouth on anyone without the proper equipment. They often vomit while you work on them.
I would give Dick Cheany a heart massage anytime but seriously I would love to shake hands with that other guys aorta.  Some sacrifices are worth making for the good of humanity; and other sacrifices just cruel cosmic jokes. Â
"Thanks to the stateâs good Samaritan law, however, you canât be sued for trying to save someoneâs life as long as you follow medical procedures."
This is not true. You can be sued. It is just unlikely that the plaintiff would prevail.
âA woman called and said her husband was unconscious, not breathing. It hadnât been that long,â Burback said. âI asked her if she was willing to do CPR. She said no. He was adamant about me not doing anything for him.â
This is reasonable. My wife and I have a similar agreement. In fact we have agreed not to call 911 at all.
@RalphCramden Ralph: "Honey, I've fallen and broken my leg. It's real bad...I'm bleeding a lot, too. Hurry! Call 911!"
Ralph's Wife: "No."
Ralph: "Honey, THIS is not THAT situation. Call 911!"
Ralph's Wife: "No."
Ralph: "Is this because of my crack about your mother? I'm sorry. Call 911!"
Ralph's Wife: "No."
Ralph: "C'mon! I'm turning blue! Call 911, dammit!"
Ralph's Wife: "No."
...later that evening...
Ralph's Wife: "That's right, officer. We each agreed not to call 911 should either of us experience a traumatic accident..."
Announcer: "And thus ends another thrilling episode of The Twilight Zone."
Let's hope she's real clear on the circumstances, Ralph! ;-)
@Mikey
Alice: What am I supposed to tell my mother when you're not here?
Ralph: I don't care. Tell her I ran off and joined the circus.
Alice: What as, an elephant?
Ralph: Oh, you're a riot, Alice. You are a regular riot. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I'll bet you got the whole building laughing. Ha, ha, ho, ho! You certainly are funny, Alice. You know, you're the one who oughta join a circus. You oughta be in the circus. You'd be funnier than that guy they got there now, Emmett Kelly, the clown. Much funnier. In fact, you look a little bit like him. All except for one thing: the big red nose.
[He raises his fist at Alice]Â
Ralph: And you might get that before this is over!Â
You know; if there was an 87 year old woman in cardiac arrest in front of me; I wouldn't give her CPR either. The likelihood that chest compressions would break he sternum, or ribs being broken and pushed into her chest cavity, and and the small likelihood that she would survive that to lead many more happy comfortable carefree days......I honestly wouldn't want to cause a person to suffer or to perpetuate a life of misery rather than simply being there in support in those last moments.Â
I would probably try to save somebody half that age or somebody that was in good physical shape but I wouldn't just attempt CPR...I'm certified but not an expert....on anybody just because I was trained. Â It is an unreasonable thing to expect of a person that isn't a professional...to accept the responsibility for a life.Â
That's why you should call 911 when in doubt - agencies are required to have their dispatchers certified in the most up-to-date version of EMD - Emergency Medical Dispatch. Â Even if you know CPR but you are in doubt of your skills, the dispatcher can walk you through it. Â They are required to go "by the book" word for word and if you put in a good faith effort and do the best you can to help the patient, you are protected under the law.
"Thanks to the stateâs good Samaritan law, however, you canât be sued for trying to save someoneâs life as long as you follow medical procedures."Â Â
Well, NO, it does not. Oregon's law provides protection if you are "medically trained". For most of us non-medical professionals, that seems to mean that you have completed an American Red Cross CPR course within the past 12 months. There is no protection for anyone who does not meet the definition of medical trained. Also, under Oregon's law, once you start CPR, you better not stop until a more trained professional shows up.
http://spot.pcc.edu/~lkidoguc/LGT/GoodSamLaw.pdf
Compare that to Washington's law, which provides protection from liability except in the case of "gross negligence or willful or wonton misconduct" to ANYONE.
http://www.cprinstructor.com/WA-GS.htm
So KATU is technically correct in this case. A medically trained nurse is protected...but the headline is extremely misleading. There is no protection for an untrained rescuer.
Here is a link for all other states laws.
http://www.heartsafeam.com/pages/faq_good_samaritan
@al_02Â
Your Red Cross certification lasts for 2 years; however, I seem to remember hearing that you'd be covered for longer than that under the law. Certification expiration is more for child care workers and others who need it for their job from what I was told.
Also, if you're doing CPR for heart reasons, you don't have to do mouth to mouth anymore. It is now recommended that you do compressions only. You'd only need to do mouth to mouth if the person isn't breathing, but has a pulse. There are tools you can carry with you to do mouth-to-mouth and not have to worry about germs, throwing up, etc. Some are larger - a little larger than the size of your fist - and others fold up to about the size of a moist toilette and could be carried in your purse, wallet, etc. The bigger ones are reusable, the little ones are disposable.
@Jenni S. No idea who told you what, but that is not what the law says. I'd strongly suggest you read the actual statute-a link is posted above.
@al_02Â @Jenni S.Â
One says three years for a Red Cross class, another says one year. It's odd since certifications for CPR cover two years. I know the two year number because I took the course (I've been recertified multiple times) and I verified the time on their web site. When I took my last course a little over a year ago, we were told the three year number (I couldn't remember 100%% for sure it was 3, but I verified it by going back and checking the notes in my course book).Â
All the info I was going by was what I was told (and retold) in my Red Cross courses.
@al_02Â "Oregon's law, once you start CPR, you better not stop until a more trained professional shows up."
That is exactly what they taught me in CPR class 4 months ago. Â They had the dummies there and we had to give them CPR for 5 straight minutes. Â I am in good shape and I was completely warn out.....doubtful I would give CPR unless it was someone close to me. Â It's not worth the risk!
@al_02 Also, too, in most situations (though not all) you are under no duty to come to the aid of a stranger in distress. That is, although not morally or ethically sound, the law does not require you to come to another person's assistance. (Unless you are a parent, a lifeguard or some other person deemed by the law to be responsible for the welfare of another). If you somehow put a person in a worse situation than when you found him or her, you could be liable for what happens to that person. The law in this regard definitely has a chilling effect on life-saving. Between the fact that the statute does not protect you if you are not properly trained, and the law can hold you responsible should you put someone in a worse situation (even if you actually did not put the person in a worse situation, you may still have to go through an expensive trial to clear your name), there is a disincentive to running to someone's aid. Luckily, when confronted with a situation like this, most people (myself included) do not stop to think about the legal consequences of helping another person who needs help right away. You just jump in and start helping.Â
Follow procedures for CPR? They have changed every time I take the CPR refresher! Which one counts as proper procedure? The latest or any of the predecessors?
@jpkÂ
They all work, they've just been adjusted for various reasons. The most recent adjustment is the compression only method (no breaths). Many people don't want to do the breaths, which is why they won't do CPR. They've found that if you can just keep the blood moving that there is enough oxygen in the system for the person to be ok for a while - typically long enough for the EMS to arrive and take over.
the compression only method,which is you find the point on the chest to put palm,and place you other hand on top,and give rapid but steady compressions,this give enough air to the lung until help arrives.
@jpk
Here is the easy way.
http://www.katu.com/home/video/In-Studio-demonstration-of-CPR-194094771.html
@jpk True enough!
IMO any of them are fine.. At least worth trying.. Better to give it a shot than do nothing.Â
My poor mom had to do CPR on 3 separate occasions on her husband. She didn't have any training but followed the 911 operators instructions and kept him alive til the EMS got there. Thankfully they lived close to SWWMC cause doing CPR is hard work! I don't know how long my mom could've kept at it but I sure was proud of her. <3
Is the irony lost........
We train and promote the use of this procedure and then if its used there is a potential threat of litigation.