Is A Police Officer Legally Required To Give Cpr To A Person With A Serious Communicable Disease?
If a sworn police officer knows or has reason to believe that a physically distressed person in need of CPR has a serious communicable disease such as HIV or Tuberculosis, are they LEGALLY REQUIRED to administer CPR?
Please state the source for your answer. Please no one word yes or no answers. Thanks.
No related posts.
7 Responses to “Is A Police Officer Legally Required To Give Cpr To A Person With A Serious Communicable Disease?”
Leave a Reply
October 27th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
No police officers are not required to do anything more that request ambulance/paramedics.
Police officers and paramedics are protected from lawsuits and scummy lawyers by their state’s version of the GOOD SAMARITAN ACT.
I’d post YOUR STATE’S law but you have not indicated which state you are referring to but here is an example:
When any doctor of medicine or dentistry, nurse, member of any organized rescue squad, member of any police or fire department, member of any organized volunteer fire department, emergency medical technician, intern or resident practicing in a hospital with training programs approved by the American Medical Association, state trooper, medical aidman functioning as a part of the military assistance to safety and traffic program, chiropractor, or public education employee gratuitously and in good faith, renders first aid or emergency care at the scene of an accident, casualty, or disaster to a person injured therein, he or she shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of his or her acts or omissions in rendering first aid or emergency care, nor shall he or she be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person.
Catch the part starting “….or omissions in rendering first aid…..”
Check that out specifically, there Johnnie Cochran, Jr.
EDIT:
Ok, here you are:
(745 ILCS 49/70)
Sec. 70. Law enforcement officers, firemen, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and First Responders; exemption from civil liability for emergency care. Any law enforcement officer or fireman as defined in Section 2 of the Line of Duty Compensation Act, any “emergency medical technician (EMT)” as defined in Section 3.50 of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems Act, and any “first responder” as defined in Section 3.60 of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems Act, who in good faith provides emergency care without fee or compensation to any person shall not, as a result of his or her acts or omissions, except willful and wanton misconduct on the part of the person, in providing the care, be liable to a person to whom such care is provided for civil damages.
(Source: P.A. 93?1047, eff. 10?18?04; 94?826, eff. 1?1?07.)
Link below
October 27th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Police are ‘professional rescuers’, First Responders, and are paid emergency personnel. The Good Sam Laws do not generally apply to paid professionals.
Professional rescuers have a legal duty to act in an emergency and can be held liable or negligent for failing to act.
As far as your question goes- HIV is hard to transmit via CPR, and a simple rescue mask, such as ALL professional responders are issued at some point or another, prevents the rest.
Put the question another way- can a paramedic refuse this? No. The only difference is that the paramedic has better training for what to do AFTER the CPR. Both are professional rescuers, first responders, and paid emergency workers.
Other points of interest-
- Cops rarely do CPR because they are rarely the first responder on such emergencies.
- Cops are at higher risk from infection during searches, when vomited on, when dealing with crash or injury victims, etc.
- Many places now teach ‘C-CPR’, or Compression Only CPR, which eliminates the mouth to mouth on adult victims.
- The issue of hygiene for this sort of situation is usually covered in the first couple hours of CPR class.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Legally required, no. We are legally required to take the appropriate action in situations. Just like we are not legally required to go in to a burning building or in to a school shooting but we do. We are trained to do it b/c that is the job we have accepted though it costs us our lives.
In all honesty? I would not subject myself to something that I knew would most likely cost me my life. (i’d like to think I had a chance in the other scenarios) If I KNEW the subject had those issues I would get my cpr mask before administering aid and wear gloves. I have a wife and kids too.
And yes, they are starting to get rid of mouth-to-mouth. Compressions are all you need. I expect to see that in the next year or two.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:57 am
As a trained first responder, they are legally required to administer first aid/CPR …… that’s why they’re trained in it. We’re also provided PPE (CPR masks, rubber gloves, etc…) to allow administration of such to those who may have AIDS, TB, HIV, hepatitis, etc…..
When fire/medical arrives, however, they’ll let the paramedics take over.
CA Deputy
October 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I doubt they are legally required to use the mouth-to-mouth part. I heard they were moving away from that because it doesnt make the person’s resuscitation any more likely.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23884566/
October 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
they would have face shields or u would cup ur hand the best u can around their mouths or there mouth.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
NO