• ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I really hope most doctors will save someone’s life even if they don’t get paid for it. But who knows? Maybe my faith in humanity is still higher than it should be.

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s not really about being paid, it’s about being covered by malpractice insurance which typically only happens for paid services. Yes people or people’s families regularly sue doctors when treatment is unsuccessful. Some jurisdictions don’t allow this, but often while non doctors cannot be sued because of these ‘Good Samaritan’ laws, doctors can still be. And when you’re in the air, it’s not always clear what jurisdiction you are in.

      • BigDiction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Seems like a contradictory explanation.

        If malpractice insurance doesn’t apply because you are not practicing, wouldn’t Good Samaritan kick in cause you’re just a member of the public during the situation?

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The US is incredibly lawsuit-heavy. You can’t even just go and explain your side of the story because the victim will bring the biggest, baddest ambulance chaser they can find.

          Not all states apply good samarintan clauses the same, some only apply to civil liability which gets messy.

          The Hippocratic oath would be enough for most to do it anyway if no one steps up, but i understand the not wanting to part because they are not universally protected.

      • kevincox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        In Canada all provinces have some form of Good Samaritan law which means that you aren’t responsible other than gross negligence. So any off-duty doctor would be very safe to help out unless they were doing something very stupid.

        • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          But who defines ‘very stupid’. The loved ones of the person who dies because the doctor didn’t recommend an emergency stop?

          • kevincox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Of course it can only surely be decided in a court. But in this case it would be something like was not actively trying to cause harm.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      It’s the same interpretation of “do no harm” that abstaining US voters did in 2024.

      Can’t do harm if you first don’t “do”.