AEDs can save lives — but only if people are willing to use them. That’s why Good Samaritan laws exist: They encourage people with little or no rescue experience to provide aid during an emergency.

Good Samaritan protections for rescuers are especially important when sudden cardiac arrest occurs and seconds count. Unless CPR and defibrillation are provided within minutes of collapse, few attempts at resuscitation are successful. It’s estimated that the chance of survival drops by 10 percent for every minute that passes.

In general, Good Samaritan laws protect people who “act in good faith” and use an AED or do CPR when sudden cardiac arrest occurs.

Laurie Heavener of Randolph, N.J., is grateful for that. When she suffered sudden cardiac arrest last year, bystanders who saw her collapse called 911. Then everyone waited for medical help to arrive while Heavener lay at the side of the road, unconscious and not breathing. Fortunately, a teenager with CPR training saw the situation and jumped in to give Heavener CPR. That courageous intervention kept her alive until the medics arrived with an AED.

Heavener, now an American Heart Association Survivor Ambassador, urges people to get CPR and AED training. She campaigns to publicize and strengthen Good Samaritan laws, writing articles such as her recent letter to the editor of The Hudson (N.J.) Reporter.

However, many of the existing Good Samaritan laws in the U.S. don’t cover everyone in every situation. Reviewing a case stemming from a car crash, California Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Good Samaritans may be liable for their acts during a rescue unless they “exercise due care.”

Advocates of the Good Samaritan statutes are concerned that this court ruling may result in potential rescuers holding back for fear of being second-guessed and sued. Three bills have already been introduced in the California legislature to clarify and expand the state’s Good Samaritan protections in the wake of the court ruling. One is from Assemblyman John Benoit, a former state highway patrol officer.

“I immediately, upon hearing about this case, was extremely concerned that it would in any way thwart people’s willingness to give that aid, because in my experience that would translate into lives lost,” Benoit told Time magazine.

In an editorial titled “I’ll Have to Call My Lawyer,” The New York Times took issue with the California court decision, calling it “a disturbingly narrow interpretation that could discourage future good Samaritans from providing help  out of fear of being sued.”

Related Post: AED Liability Protection

Photo credit: wtvh.com

Last 5 posts

• Cardiac Science AEDs in Spain [VIDEO] - April 4th, 2011
• Cardiac Science wins first major public access defibrillation program in Europe - March 30th, 2011
• Georgia Park saves 5 lives with AEDs - March 24th, 2011
• Sad stories, avoidable deaths? - March 23rd, 2011
• Texas school's AED saves 6-year-old's life - March 22nd, 2011

Be Sociable, Share!

•