Calling out CRO

[Joel Colk]

Ian, again I don't think that your comparison is accurate. We could both draw on several court cases and be here all day discussing it.

The health and safety executive is paid. Your average caver with a standard first aid certificate is not.

I also work in health and safety in a specialised environment as of Monday and I look forward to arguing with you further into the future

Perhaps you are taking the same view as Tony Broklebank and applying it over a broader spectrum. The issue there is that DCC take a "donation" from members of the public around the mine. If someone is injured, the insurance would kick in? Still to be tested... If the insurance didn't cover it, surely then the prosecutors would go after club members to cover the rest.

Again, I honestly think that when a sum passes hands or an official is paid, it can change things dramatically.

[Ian A]

Joel,

We may well not have comparisons right and I am most certainly coming at it from a “business” angle and not an amateur caving club angle.

If Iestyn is right about this then awesome;

[quote="Iestyn999" post=24381]You're never going to be prosecuted for doing first aid wrong. There's a thing called "the good samaritan law" which protects have a go heroes. provided you act, in what you believe to be, the casualties best interest.
[/quote]

“First Aid” may have exceptions but I am not aware other scenarios do.

Of course, the BCA insurance will cover 3rd party injury damages (AFAIK) but I am talking about a criminal prosecution.

I am also very aware that HSE have no interest in amateur clubs who do amateur things with no formal qualifications. However, they do take an interest when there is a “professional” involved.

If one of a group of friends got killed in an accident in a cave I expect it would be seen as a tragedy.

If a group of friends on a paid, commercial tour around a cave got killed you will expect HSE to be all over that like a rash.

What if the group of friends were on a non-commercial tour but being lead by the same professionally qualified leader â€" how would HSE look at that ?

…. Now apply that logic to a “qualified” first aider.

As I said, I hope Iestyn is right (I don’t know about the Good Samatian law).

And when you come over for a debate, bring a bottle of wine !

 :kiss:  :kiss:  :kiss:

Ian

[Rostam]

[quote="Ian" post=24374]Ross,

I agree in "principle" that learning first aid is a good thing.

There are additional factors ....

A lot of us "haven't" learned first aid and most of "us" won't consider it a pre-requisite to do so.

CPR - yes, I get that. Apply pressure, yes I get that ...

First aid courses (and the certificates that come with them) teach you to place people in "recovery positions" - one of those positions can kill someone who has been hung up on ropes so I stand by my reservation about "normal" first aid training.

Also, please don't forget we live in a litigious society ....

I know your vocation and respect your advice and opinion  

Ian[/quote]
Whether the recovery position would cause a toxic load after suspension trauma is still debated by doctors (there are other things to be worried about) but due to bolam principle in medical law you would be covered either way.

Moving a potential C spine injury - that COULD land you in trouble. There are often other considerations underground that means you'll have to do something like that as a first aider.

First aid practice is no substitute for experience but fortunately the latter is hard to come by! I think the basics in a 'normal' first aid course are still worth knowing for the underground. TBH I'm not sure how much more useful dedicated outdoor courses are other than suspension trauma and crush injury.

I'll try to think of more ways you could be 'in trouble', it's an interesting exercise...

[Tim Watts]

My view. Act to the best of your knowledge. More knowledge is better. Good Samaritan law does exist and aims to abolish previous ridiculous cases where from the no win no fee mindset brigade. Let's not forget here that pretty much the only thing you as an amateur club member, member of public, can be charged with is negligence. Taking the time out to train yourself in basic first aid and being willing to act to the best of your ability would appear to be far removed from being negligent.

Sent from my 1+one using Tapatalk

[Tim Watts]

Indeed.... Not doing either and knowingly enter, with others, what is obviously an environment that your sphere of knowledge clearly defines as a hazardous situation, without making an effort to have first aid capacity 'could' be suggested as being negligent
ent.  Don't shy away from learning and doing the right thing as a human being.

Sent from my 1+one using Tapatalk

[Tim Watts]

PS i'm not drunk enough either!

[Ian A]

This link;

http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_status_of_those_who_provide_first_aid.pdf

Suggests that there is no current Good Samaritan Law in the UK ?!?!??

When it was suggested earlier it rang a bell and I thought there was, but this seems to suggest a first aider could be negligent  :dry:

[Tim Watts]

I think someone wittingly going into a dangerous situation without making an effort to consider (in this case) typical possible first aid requirements would likely be considered more negligent. And would possibly be easy to 'prove'.

Sent from my 1+one using Tapatalk

[Ian A]

The "Good Samaritan Law" is due to be passed through parliament next year;

http://www.iosh.co.uk/News/IOSH-supports-good-Samaritans-law.aspx

Of course, there is a general election in May so fuck knows whether it will happen or not.


I have a first aid kit (I have two) and I carry one in my rucksack when I am walking with friends and I also carry one underground if I am "leading" (I know we don't use that term). I am not ignorant to first aid and know a number of basics but I have no "paper qualification". If the need arose, of course I would take out my small pack and attempt to assist.

However, unless it was a particularly minor event I doubt I would be much use.

No one (I don't think) is arguing against the use of First Aid but I do have to wonder, for instance, if (just as an example) Iestyn would be in difficulties if he undertook First Aid and something got fooked up ?

 :dry:

Ian

[Iestyn Rhys Pritchard]

[quote="Ian" post=24391]

No one (I don't think) is arguing against the use of First Aid but I do have to wonder, for instance, if (just as an example) Iestyn would be in difficulties if he undertook First Aid and something got fooked up ?

 :dry:

Ian[/quote]

I shouldn't be unless I did something completely stupid, or more likely, tried to do something which is beyond my level of practice.
But, that then I could bring up the argument that if the casualty was already dead or dying that it was worth a shot.
I'm insured to do use all procedures/ techniques that I've been trained to do and would get union backing. (again, provided I didn't do anything seriously stupid)

[Tim Watts]

Sums it up. To prove someone to be negligent when they are trying to help is difficult I would have thought?

Sent from my 1+one using Tapatalk

[Tim Watts]

As you say. You'd have to do something you'd know to NOT be in the best interests to be proved negligent. Which of course you wouldn't do

Sent from my 1+one using Tapatalk

[Philip Scott]

Lordy. This is all getting a bit in depth! Thinking I need to at least get a first aid kit, presently do not even carry insulating tape  :unsure: