溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: CPA 唔好亂做 [打印本頁]

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-24 20:38 標題: CPA 唔好亂做

亂急救奪命家屬可索償

【明報專訊】一群無中醫牌照亦未經專業急救訓練的熱心波友，向懷疑心臟病發昏厥的傷者施以按穴急救及心外壓，最後事主保住性命，算是有個好結局。然而，若事主不幸死亡，「無牌」施救者是否須負刑責？大律師陸偉雄指出，「因為有關行為只為救人，沒犯罪意圖，故不涉謀殺或誤殺，一般毋須負刑責。」

沒犯罪意圖毋須負刑責

陸表示，若事主由無專業資格者急救後死亡，死者家屬有可能以對方涉嫌疏忽為由，循民事入稟索償。他解釋，沒有專業資格者，其中一個責任是不應胡亂施救，否則即屬疏忽，「為事主解開衫鈕等當然不計，但若運用專業的急救法如心外壓和人工呼吸等，便屬不恰當」。

陸補充，能否成功追討要視乎驗屍結果，若死因屬心臟毛病，急救方式非直接令對方死亡，施救者沒任何責任；若死者因被按壓致肋骨折斷，刺穿肺部而亡，家屬有可能追究。「不過，如施救者以按穴的方法急救，則較難驗證死因是否與此有關」，但他坦言，鮮有家屬會向好心施救的市民索償。

作者: Purpleheart 時間: 2010-1-24 23:04

所以羊羊你要記得CPA 唔好胡亂同任何人做呀!!

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-1-25 00:00

In Canada, we have the "Good Samaritan law" that protects us from such liabilities. However, I would be more careful down in the States as I know a certified first aid responder got herself sued by some stupid US mall for providing first aid to a person in need at the at the shopping mall parking lot.

-Lik

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2010-1-25 00:10

美國同中國一樣
好事莫做

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 00:43

就算比人告都要試下救啦, 人命關天啊!

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-1-25 00:55

"""In Canada, we have the "Good Samaritan law" that protects us from such liabilities. """

are you sure about that? i remember when i took the cpr course few years ago, the guy from st. john said " by law, you are not allow to give cpr treatment if you don't have any official cpr training".

作者: siumaibb 時間: 2010-1-25 01:46

佢學CPA梗係救死人，因為佢學錯野，救人係要學CPR

作者: jaden 時間: 2010-1-25 01:49

我有CPA證書，但系未到危機關頭，都唔會亂出手。

作者: bubblesalt 時間: 2010-1-25 05:27

7# siumaibb

hahhaaa.... I was thinking the same thing too... CPA is Canadian Physiotherapy Association, so I guess if someone twisted their ankle 扭傷 and you don't have CPA, but you help them and they died...

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 09:02

CPR OK
咁都回錯
Thank you

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 09:08

2# Purpleheart

你知㗎
我咩都鐘易拗孌都要拗番直

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-1-25 09:46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_responder

作者: blue20ae 時間: 2010-1-25 11:19

"""In Canada, we have the "Good Samaritan law" that protects us from such liabilities. """

are you sure about that? i remember when i took the cpr course few years ago, the guy from st. john said " ...
tofu 發表於 2010-1-25 01:55

My CPR certificate expired already. But I do remember the course instructor mentioned the same regarding Good Samaritan law.

Also see this...
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/docum ... 172/00_96172_01.xml

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-25 12:59

就算比人告都要試下救啦, 人命關天啊!
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-25 00:43

That's the sad part. Since the laws are stupid, people should react the same accordingly.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 13:08

5# mcjohnjohn

如果你係一無所有嘅話
可以試吓

作者: mucc1928 時間: 2010-1-25 13:09

i think it's CPR, not CPA

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-1-25 13:13

本帖最後由 daimo 於 2010-1-25 14:32 編輯

actually, according to instructor you were NOT supposed to perform CPR without the CPR mask ... that is, if you don't know who that person is. Safety for yourself is the 1st priority.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 17:56

5# mcjohnjohn

如果你係一無所有嘅話
可以試吓
sheep 發表於 2010-1-26 05:08

我覺得人命大過天~
如果可以救到一個人, 就算犧牲一d 野都冇辦法, 救人要緊!
就算真係touchwood 比人告, 都只不過係民事索償, 大不了冇哂d 錢. 如果見死不救, 我相信一定過唔到自己既良心, 一生都受良心既譴責.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 18:01

18# mcjohnjohn

咁樣囉
本來你唔救佢佢就會死
不過你救番佢條命佢變成植物人
點計？

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 18:05

轉頭俾人告你
話如果唔係你唔識又亂做
佢可能有得救重會完全康復
到時你一褲都係

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-25 18:18

我覺得人命大過天~
如果可以救到一個人, 就算犧牲一d 野都冇辦法, 救人要緊!
就算真係touchwood 比人告, 都只不過係民事索償, 大不了冇哂d 錢. 如果見死不救, 我相信一定過唔到自己既良心, 一生都受良心既譴責. ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-25 17:56

I'm not that 偉大. I definitely won't put my own family at risk but just trying to save a stranger's life. (and actually I have no 100% confidence if I can save that stranger, but a bigger chance to put my family at risk.)

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 18:29

轉頭俾人告你
話如果唔係你唔識又亂做
佢可能有得救重會完全康復
到時你一褲都係
sheep 發表於 2010-1-26 10:05

大前題當然係自己識做又唔會亂做啦~

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 18:31

18# mcjohnjohn

咁樣囉
本來你唔救佢佢就會死
不過你救番佢條命佢變成植物人
點計？
sheep 發表於 2010-1-26 10:01

話唔定救番佢條命, 佢可以完全康復呢~
唔救過又真係唔知個結果係點架woh.
總之, 小弟深信"人在做, 天在看", 小弟問心無愧, 就算真係比人告, 真係周褲都係, 我都心甘情願. 因為, 我覺得人命係好緊要.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 18:36

I'm not that 偉大. I definitely won't put my own family at risk but just trying to save a stranger's life. (and actually I have no 100% confidence if I can save that stranger, but a bigger chance to ...
Ultraman 發表於 2010-1-26 10:18

當然, 我都唔係你想像中咁偉大, 如果要我死一個屋企人而去救一個三唔識七既人, 我應該做唔到.
不過, 我覺得救人就唔應該諗一d 咁既所謂risk (如: 比人告). 對於小弟黎講, 如果要入火場救人, 真係會隨時冇命, 咁樣就係risk law.
而家, 講黎講去都係話驚救人救唔到而害左自己. 點害法woh, 又唔會死既, 大不了就賠錢比人之麻.
錢, 雖然係重要, 但點能夠同生命比較?!?!

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 18:47

24# mcjohnjohn

到時你要賣咗間屋去還錢
你老婆話要同你離婚
你個女問爸爸媽咪去左邊？

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-25 18:53

當然, 我都唔係你想像中咁偉大, 如果要我死一個屋企人而去救一個三唔識七既人, 我應該做唔到.
不過, 我覺得救人就唔應該諗一d 咁既所謂risk (如: 比人告). 對於小弟黎講, 如果要入火場救人, 真係會隨時冇命, 咁樣就 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-25 18:36

The case is not one-life-replace-one-life. However, as your example that you will lose all your money for being sued. Then your family, including your beloved wife, children, and parents and all other dependents (where applicable) will have no economic support all of a sudden. If you still think it's OK, go ahead. Hope your family will also support you.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 19:00

24# mcjohnjohn

到時你要賣咗間屋去還錢
你老婆話要同你離婚
你個女問爸爸媽咪去左邊？
sheep 發表於 2010-1-26 10:47

層樓我同老婆一人一半, 應該仲有d 渣拿的~
仲有, 我100%肯定我老婆唔會因為咁而同我離婚的, 婚姻唔係咁脆弱既. 我地曾經互相許諾 - "從今以後, 無論環境順逆, 疾病健康, 我將永遠愛慕尊重你, 終生不渝."
其實, 冇哂錢都好, 大不了就捱過law. 好彩我同老婆都有少少能力搵到下錢, 應該餓唔死的.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 19:05

The case is not one-life-replace-one-life. However, as your example that you will lose all your money for being sued. Then your family, including your beloved wife, children, and parents and all other dependents (where applicable) will have no economic support all of a sudden. If you still think it's OK, go ahead. Hope your family will also support you.
Ultraman 發表於 2010-1-26 10:53

救一個人都要諗咁多野? 我寧願好似而家咁不經思索就好了.
我只知道, 人命係最重要, 救人一命勝造七級浮"圖", 我唔明白點解救人都要咁下會唔會對自己有影響... 果d 所謂影響都唔係乜野性命尤關既事.
我重申一點, 如果:
1. 自己識救
2. 對自己生命冇危險
我都會試下去救, 果d 乜野要賠錢呀, 救左都變植物人既言論永遠都唔能夠影響都我對人命既看重.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-1-25 19:15

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2010-1-25 20:18 編輯

冇野好講

估唔到就俾你拆我招牌
芯芯我唔製

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 19:51

冇野好講

估唔到就俾你拆我招牌
芯芯我唔製
sheep 發表於 2010-1-26 11:15

頂... 係人都知你比你既紫芯妹妹拆左個招牌 - 貞節牌坊啦!

作者: daimo 時間: 2010-1-25 20:15

just my 2 cents.

This article is misleading and using CPR as an example is just poor.  People who are trained will not be swayed by this article, luckily.

Most of the law suits are related to spinal cord or neck injuries when the patients were moved unprofessionally.  For cardiac arrest, if you are CPR trained and if you have the proper tool (the mask - which is needed to protect yourself), then I'll say it's a good call to help.

I have experienced 2 real life experience when someone had cardiac arrest just right in front of my eyes(i weren't trained at that time).  Although ambulances in Canada are quite efficient (~10 mins), in both cases, they were just too late.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-25 22:04

救一個人都要諗咁多野? 我寧願好似而家咁不經思索就好了.
我只知道, 人命係最重要, 救人一命勝造七級浮"圖", 我唔明白點解救人都要咁下會唔會對自己有影響... 果d 所謂影響都唔係乜野性命尤關既事.
我重申一點, 如 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-25 19:05

I appreciate your value.
I'm just different. Theoretically, all lives worth the same. But to me, my family worth much more than any stranger. Every time I go out, I will try my very best to protect myself in order to go home safe in one piece. If I can't even protect myself, how can I protect my beloved family?!

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-25 22:44

I appreciate your value.
I'm just different. Theoretically, all lives worth the same. But to me, my family worth much more than any stranger. Every time I go out, I will try my very best to protect ...
Ultraman 發表於 2010-1-26 14:04

Ultraman, 咁講啦~
舉個例, 就好似見到一個老婆婆o係街上跌左袋橙, 會唔會唔幫佢執呢?
1. d 橙會唔會有毒品? 會唔會幫佢運毒?
2. 個婆婆見到我幫佢執, 會唔會反咬我偷佢d 橙?

一句講哂: 如果做好事(明知對受助人係好既話)都要諗咁多野, 仲乜諗野呀!

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-1-25 23:10

I think it's just basic instinct. If you know those first aid skill, you will do it...without thinking...

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 01:26

Ultraman, 咁講啦~
舉個例, 就好似見到一個老婆婆o係街上跌左袋橙, 會唔會唔幫佢執呢?
1. d 橙會唔會有毒品? 會唔會幫佢運毒?
2. 個婆婆見到我幫佢執, 會唔會反咬我偷佢d 橙?

一句講哂: 如果做好事(明知對受助人係 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-25 22:44

How about some other examples:
1. Homeless people ask me for spare change, I won't give anything to them. Cuz first, I don't want them to use my money to buy drugs; second, I've read news about some kind-hearted people got stabbed and/or got robbed by those bad homeless people at time of giving them money.
2. Hitchhikers want to get on my car, I won't stop nor let them in. I've also read news for kind hearted people got stabbed and/or robbed by bad hitchhikers.

I don't need to think every time when I face each situation. Once my first top priority is my family and I want to go home safe in one piece everyday every time, I already know what I should react in my default mode.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-26 07:13

Ultraman, 其實你果兩個case 都唔涉及人命, 都唔係乜野危急既case 啦~
而家既情況, 就好似鐵達尼號沉船咁, 如果你一家人坐左o係一隻救生艇, 而救生艇上有好多空位. 咁arm 比你見到一個人o係水面叫緊救命, 同你隻船好近, 你大可以伸手拉佢上黎. 不過, 你伸手既話就有1%機會整沉隻船, 而你唔伸手既話個遇溺者就100%打柴, 不過, 就算你救佢, 佢都有50%機會失溫而死, 咁你會唔會救佢丫?

我就一定會去救佢law.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 12:54

本帖最後由 Ultraman 於 2010-1-26 12:56 編輯

Ultraman, 其實你果兩個case 都唔涉及人命, 都唔係乜野危急既case 啦~
而家既情況, 就好似鐵達尼號沉船咁, 如果你一家人坐左o係一隻救生艇, 而救生艇上有好多空位. 咁arm 比你見到一個人o係水面叫緊救命, 同你隻船好 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-26 07:13

Please make clear of your own example situations.
You quoted 老婆婆o係街上跌左袋橙, it's not 涉及人命 and also not 危急既case. That means, I can decide to help her or not to help her, not a big deal anyways.
My examples, they might not involve other people's lives but surely may affect my own life (can't deny there is a chance), therefore I won't risk it.
For your Titanic example is another scenario, which all of we passengers are in pretty much the same situation. Everybody is facing the same risk.
You may say I think too much. But isn't brain designed to think? If I haven't been thinking/considering that much, I couldn't be still survive till today la.

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-1-26 15:32

My CPR certificate expired already.
really expired?  i thought it has no expiration date?
i checked the st. john website, and here is what i get.  where do you take yours ar?
When does CPR certification expire?
CPR does not expire but is recommended to be renewed every year.  Workplace requirements may vary in each province.

Also see this...
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/docum ... 172/00_96172_01.xml
there is a cause on the above article.  "this act is current to Jan 13, 2010".  so what will happen after that date ar?

Not all  Canada's provinces have passed good samaritan act, so it just depends on where you are.

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-1-26 15:43

如果:
1. 自己識救
2. 對自己生命冇危險
truth, but those are the most common areas to make mistakes ar.
you think you know how to do it doesn't mean you knew how to do it
for a normal person, it is hard to judge how safe is the environment

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-26 18:00

如果:
1. 自己識救
2. 對自己生命冇危險
truth, but those are the most common areas to make mistakes ar.
you think you know how to do it doesn't mean you knew how to do it
for a normal person, it is hard ...
tofu 發表於 2010-1-27 07:43

唉... 總之比著係我就唔會諗咁多啦! 好難做得出見死不救既行為law.
-- 完 --

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 18:54

唉... 總之比著係我就唔會諗咁多啦! 好難做得出見死不救既行為law.
-- 完 --
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-26 18:00

The old question (but not your wife vs your mom this time): if your wife and a stranger both fall into the water, providing that both of them can't swim, which one of them would you rescue first (provided that you are a certified lifeguard)?

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-26 19:28

The old question (but not your wife vs your mom this time): if your wife and a stranger both fall into the water, providing that both of them can't swim, which one of them would you rescue first (pro ...
Ultraman 發表於 2010-1-27 10:54

緊係救老婆先啦! 快快救完老婆再去救埋果個陌生人.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 20:39

緊係救老婆先啦! 快快救完老婆再去救埋果個陌生人.
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-26 19:28

See?! Your family (wife) is still your first priority la. How if you can only save one person and the other will die? Your wife or the stranger?

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-26 20:51

緊係救老婆先啦!
幾時變左呢個話題架? 乜唔係話幫唔幫人急救乍咩?
如果我老婆同一個陌生人同一時間需要人急救, 我一定救老婆先啦! 但而家我老婆冇事woh, 咁點解唔走救果個陌生人?

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 21:10

緊係救老婆先啦!
幾時變左呢個話題架? 乜唔係話幫唔幫人急救乍咩?
如果我老婆同一個陌生人同一時間需要人急救, 我一定救老婆先啦! 但而家我老婆冇事woh, 咁點解唔走救果個陌生人? ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-1-26 20:51

Yes, it's about "priority", but priority has different "levels". (I don't know how to explain...)
As I said even I know all lives worth the same but irrationally I feel my wife's life worth more than a stranger's. Even my wife's little finger worth more than a stranger's life! That's why I won't risk my family over any circumstances, not to say to sacrifice my family to save other's life, not even to put my family into economic crisis to save other. That's just me.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-1-26 21:28

Yes, it's about "priority", but priority has different "levels". (I don't know how to explain...)
As I said even I know all lives worth the same but irrationally I feel my wife's life worth more than a stranger's. Even my wife's little finger worth more than a stranger's life! That's why I won't risk my family over any circumstances, not to say to sacrifice my family to save other's life, not even to put my family into economic crisis to save other. That's just me.
Ultraman 發表於 2010-1-27 13:10

咁我就好唔同喇. 我覺得我老婆既little finger 冇一個人既性命咁重要.
可能我自己都係一個願意犧牲既人, 我都係一廂情願咁諗jel, 話唔定我老婆覺得佢既little finger 比其他人既人命都緊要.

我又唔可以話你錯既, 只係大家既諗法唔同.

錢, 對於小弟黎講真係唔係咁重要. 有時我都會諗下如果我係一個好鍾意錢同權力既人, 我應該可以係一個事業好成功既人, 但我不會快樂.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2010-1-26 22:06

Maybe it's just me. I won't get married if I can't protect her by all means (except illegal things), I won't even go to work if money is not important to me. I work hard because I want my family lives better. On the other hand, if I don't put effort to protect my family and I let my family gets into economic crisis, that means my family is not that important to me.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)