Today’s WSJ covers the story, which has been around for a while, and Dr. Wes has one reaction. We’ve had numerous posts touching on the liability implications of keeping defibrillators on hand at public places, not keeping them on hand, or both.
Today’s WSJ covers the story, which has been around for a while, and Dr. Wes has one reaction. We’ve had numerous posts touching on the liability implications of keeping defibrillators on hand at public places, not keeping them on hand, or both.
6 Comments
Interesting how the tort lawyers like to claim how valuable they are to our society and how they help to save lives. But here’s, once again, yet another case in which the tort lawyers are causing unnecessary deaths.
I understand that the red cross gives a class on how to actually operate these things. Maybe it would be a good idea for a CPR refresher and AED training. We didn’t have AED’s when I took CPR classes.
Defibrillators won’t do anyone any good if the people in the immediate vicinity of the emergency do not know how to operate them.
A friend of mine who works at a bank has access to defribilators — and, every so often, takes a course to make sure she is up-to-date in their use.
Bob
Of course, this isn’t about defibs. This could be Ipecac, first aid kits, or any other object whose intended design and use is primarily for helping distressed people survive. People in distress can easily be classified as victims; those who’ve suffered injury (at the hands of someone else’s negligence). Juries love victims and they love helping victims even more. And plaintiffs’ attorneys love juries who love helping victims be made whole. And one thing juries don’t like are corporations.
Benjamin: My recent First Aid course covered AEDs and changes in the CPR protocol.
PhilG: “yet another case in which the tort lawyers are causing unnecessary deaths.” What about the tort lawyers who die due to the lack of AEDs? Perhaps we should take it another step forward and ban all AEDs from tort lawer offices…