Kelvin Teo

The first thing to ask is what is a Good Samaritan Law? In a nutshell, it is basically a law that is designed to protect bystanders or passerbys who choose to render help in the event of a medical emergency. With the basic gist of the law comes its nitty-gritty details, which comes in different variations depending on the jurisdictions.

The principles for the Good Samaritan Law are contained in the legal systems of countries whose foundations are based on the English Common law. English Common law is the legal system used in England and Wales and forms the basis of legal systems applied in most Commonwealth countries.

However, the law is implemented in different forms, and many has to do with the medical or first aid expertise of the one rendering help. In some jurisdictions, the Good Samaritan Law is applicable to those who have received relevant medical or first aid training, and have carried out the rescue action according to the scope of training. If an untrained personnel offers help, does the first aid procedure incorrectly and errors are made, he can still be legally liable. In other jurisdictions, all rescuers, regardless of level of training are protected from liability.

In some societies, there is a legal duty to rescue and failure to do so will result in prosecution. This is especially so for Europe. In New South Wales, Australia, it is apparent that a medical professional (qualified doctor) has a duty to attend to a medical emergency, this coming from the case of Woods versus Dr Lowns.

The plaintiff, Woods, had a history of epilepsy. At that time when he was of age 10, he suffered from a fit. The boy’s mother told her daughter to get a physician to attend to the boy. The daughter subsequently came to Dr Lowns’ clinic, at which the doctor did not attend to the emergency but instead told her to bring her brother to the surgery.

Due to the fitting, the boy suffered brain damage. He subsequently successfully sued Dr Lowns. Within New South Wales, there is a societal expectation of those with relevant medical qualifications to attend to medical emergencies, failure to do so is tantamount to lack of professionalism. This factor was taken into consideration by the judge (s) presiding over the case.

Now, certain states of Australia have the Good Samaritan Law in place that provides protection from litigation to those who render help in emergencies, and that is provided that they act in good faith and without gross negligence. When we speak of gross negligence, it is taken to mean a gross departure from the expected standards of care in a way that little regard is shown to human life.

The interesting question is to what extent are medical professionals covered by the Good Samaritan Law. Say for example, a doctor happens to walk back to his car from lunch when a member of the public collapses due to cardiorespiratory arrest. At least in the Australian jurisdiction, the Good Samaritan Law covers the doctor when he attends to the casualty in good faith and without gross negligence.

It is generally agreed that when someone acts in good faith, he isn’t receiving any form of compensation or rewards, monetary or otherwise, for rendering the aid in emergency. The law covers the doctor who attends to the casualty until he reaches the hospital. If the doctor continues to attend to the casualty within the hospital setting, the Good Samaritan Law no longer binds and he is required to treat the patient according to the expected standards required by the medical profession, and failure to do so will result in litigation.

Singapore currently does not have a Good Samaritan Law. However, let’s forget about whether or not we have the Good Samaritan Law in the first place and concentrate on why are members of the public who have received prior first aid training hesitant in helping (it is routine for companies to send their staff for First Aid training), say a middle-aged woman who collapsed due to cardiorespiratory arrest. Discounting nonchalance, “not-my-business” and apathy, the other explanable reasons are uncertainty with respect to consequences and fear of litigation.

When someone collapses due to cardiorespiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has to be administered immediately. It is known that the casualty’s chances of survival increases if the rescuer pushes with 100 – 125 pounds of force on the chest. However, generation of that kind of force can result in one rather unpleasant thing for the victim – rib fractures. Unpleasant effect, yes, but at least the life can be preserved. Hence for such a procedure, although the resuscitation rate is increased, the risk for rib fracture is also increased.

I encountered a personal experience once when someone we knew collapsed on the field. At that point of time, we had intended to do CPR but the issue was that none of us possessed a valid First Aid Certificate. Being the motley crew of National Service guys, we were however trained in First Aid and successfully passed our First Aid test when we were in Basic Military Training (BMT). Thus, we were wondering whether we are qualified to give first aid and if our First Aid training in BMT was recognised. We only ended up establishing whether the casualty was responsive, and removing any tight-fitting items on his body, whilst waiting for the ambulance to arrive. In our case, there is a sense of uncertainty as to whether we were considered qualified to render First Aid.

Hence, the pertinent question is whether Singapore should have a Good Samaritan Law to protect those rendering help in good faith without compensation. If our lawmakers are considering one, drafting one isn’t straightforward. Pertinent issues like who should administer First Aid – certified First Aiders or any member of the public abound. The other issue is what form of First Aid training is recognised other than the obvious accredited First Aid training centres, for instance, is BMT First Aid training recognised?

Would the Good Samaritan Law cover medical professionals such as qualified doctors? For instance, is the threshold for gross negligence for doctors offering help lower than that of a non-medical professional? And, this also includes the extent of coverage of the Good Samaritan Law for the good doctor who attends – does the coverage end when the doctor reaches the hospital with the casualty and continue treating the latter? These definitely are the issues to consider IF our lawmakers do ever consider drafting a Good Samaritan Law.