- Email: [email protected]
Good Samaritan Laws
Letters Good Samaritan Laws
The author replies
I read the article "Ghosts From Samaria: Good Samaritan Laws in the Hospital," by Francis Helminski, J.D., which was published in the April 1993 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (pages 400 to 401), with considerable interest. As I look back on my own experience throughout the years as a physician who has encountered accidents, who has been asked to help in hospitals, in airports, and on airplanes, and who has aided numerous persons with sick humans and animals, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that one possibility is to repeal Good Samaritan laws. One reference is Helminski's own study about Good Samaritan statutes, in which he states that physicians do not alter their behavior because of such laws. From my own experience, that statement is inaccurate. I remember clearly when the medicolegal issues became apparent and before Good Samaritan laws were in effect. I was riding along the turnpike in a car with other physicians; we were driving to a meeting. We encountered an accident and quickly debated whether we should stop. The conclusion (with which I disagreed at the time) was that we should not stop because we would be at risk legally, and we would be required to accompany the patient to the hospital. After the Good Samaritan laws were passed, my behavior completely changed-back to what it had been before. I stop for accidents and take care of people, and I believe that other physicians do the same. I offer aid when asked-whether on a highway, in a hospital, at my summer vacation home on a remote island in Michigan, or even over the air. As an amateur radio operator, I conduct medical amateur radio council grand rounds weekly. During these meetings, we have been asked medical questions and, occasionally, we have even provided care during an emergency, such as when premature twins were born in Haiti. A nurse at the other end of the radio had no physician or telephone contact within 4 to 6 hours; she wanted to know how to operate the incubator and what type of nourishment should be offered to the newborns. These issues have been handled without much thought of legal responsibility. To rescind or repeal Good Samaritan laws, even if they are not very effective legally, would send the wrong signal to physicians who want to help inside and outside hospitals.
I thank Dr. Currier for commenting on my recent article about Good Samaritan laws. If such laws, in fact, do encourage physicians to stop and assist during emergencies when they would not otherwise do so, then I think they are socially useful. I am unaware of any good survey that addresses this issue. In my 1980 article, 1 I referred to a survey- that had reported that half of the physician-respondents stated that the presence of Good Samaritan laws would not affect their decision to aid during an emergency. Part of the point of my article was to warn physicians that these statutes may not be very effective and thus they should not necessarily be relied on during emergencies. Philosophically, I do not think that laws should be retained for symbolic value only-that is why I suggested that these statutes either should be repealed or should be made uniform throughout the United States so that physicians can rely on them in calculating what actions to take. I appreciate Dr. Currier's comments. If a useful study of physician behavior in the face of Good Samaritan legislation is available, I would be interested in reviewing it.
Robert D. Currier, M.D. Department of Neurology The University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson, Mississippi Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68:620-621
Francis Helminski, J.D.
REFERENCES 1. Helminski F. Good Samaritan statutes: time for uniformity. WayneLaw Rev 1980; 27:217-267 2. Negligent Samaritans are no good. Medicolegal News 1979 Spring; 4
Cutaneous Paraneoplastic Syndromes Associated With Lung Cancer Cutaneous paraneoplastic syndromes are a group of dermatoses that occur before, concurrent with, or after an associated malignant disease; in addition, some such dermatoses may be noted in persons who are free of cancer, either in association with a systemic disease or as an isolated dermatologic condition.' Prompt diagnosis and appropriate evaluation of these conditions may enable the early detection of an otherwise asymptomatic internal neoplasm. Although the pathogenesis of many of these dermatoses remains undetermined, a postulated mechanism is that they are caused directly by a cytokine secreted by the tumor; alternatively, the neoplasm may participate indirectly by inducing accessory cells to secrete the causative factor. 620
© 1993 Mayo Foundation/or Medical Education and Research
The author replies
I read the article "Ghosts From Samaria: Good Samaritan Laws in the Hospital," by Francis Helminski, J.D., which was published in the April 1993 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (pages 400 to 401), with considerable interest. As I look back on my own experience throughout the years as a physician who has encountered accidents, who has been asked to help in hospitals, in airports, and on airplanes, and who has aided numerous persons with sick humans and animals, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that one possibility is to repeal Good Samaritan laws. One reference is Helminski's own study about Good Samaritan statutes, in which he states that physicians do not alter their behavior because of such laws. From my own experience, that statement is inaccurate. I remember clearly when the medicolegal issues became apparent and before Good Samaritan laws were in effect. I was riding along the turnpike in a car with other physicians; we were driving to a meeting. We encountered an accident and quickly debated whether we should stop. The conclusion (with which I disagreed at the time) was that we should not stop because we would be at risk legally, and we would be required to accompany the patient to the hospital. After the Good Samaritan laws were passed, my behavior completely changed-back to what it had been before. I stop for accidents and take care of people, and I believe that other physicians do the same. I offer aid when asked-whether on a highway, in a hospital, at my summer vacation home on a remote island in Michigan, or even over the air. As an amateur radio operator, I conduct medical amateur radio council grand rounds weekly. During these meetings, we have been asked medical questions and, occasionally, we have even provided care during an emergency, such as when premature twins were born in Haiti. A nurse at the other end of the radio had no physician or telephone contact within 4 to 6 hours; she wanted to know how to operate the incubator and what type of nourishment should be offered to the newborns. These issues have been handled without much thought of legal responsibility. To rescind or repeal Good Samaritan laws, even if they are not very effective legally, would send the wrong signal to physicians who want to help inside and outside hospitals.
I thank Dr. Currier for commenting on my recent article about Good Samaritan laws. If such laws, in fact, do encourage physicians to stop and assist during emergencies when they would not otherwise do so, then I think they are socially useful. I am unaware of any good survey that addresses this issue. In my 1980 article, 1 I referred to a survey- that had reported that half of the physician-respondents stated that the presence of Good Samaritan laws would not affect their decision to aid during an emergency. Part of the point of my article was to warn physicians that these statutes may not be very effective and thus they should not necessarily be relied on during emergencies. Philosophically, I do not think that laws should be retained for symbolic value only-that is why I suggested that these statutes either should be repealed or should be made uniform throughout the United States so that physicians can rely on them in calculating what actions to take. I appreciate Dr. Currier's comments. If a useful study of physician behavior in the face of Good Samaritan legislation is available, I would be interested in reviewing it.
Robert D. Currier, M.D. Department of Neurology The University of Mississippi Medical Center Jackson, Mississippi Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68:620-621
Francis Helminski, J.D.
REFERENCES 1. Helminski F. Good Samaritan statutes: time for uniformity. WayneLaw Rev 1980; 27:217-267 2. Negligent Samaritans are no good. Medicolegal News 1979 Spring; 4
Cutaneous Paraneoplastic Syndromes Associated With Lung Cancer Cutaneous paraneoplastic syndromes are a group of dermatoses that occur before, concurrent with, or after an associated malignant disease; in addition, some such dermatoses may be noted in persons who are free of cancer, either in association with a systemic disease or as an isolated dermatologic condition.' Prompt diagnosis and appropriate evaluation of these conditions may enable the early detection of an otherwise asymptomatic internal neoplasm. Although the pathogenesis of many of these dermatoses remains undetermined, a postulated mechanism is that they are caused directly by a cytokine secreted by the tumor; alternatively, the neoplasm may participate indirectly by inducing accessory cells to secrete the causative factor. 620
© 1993 Mayo Foundation/or Medical Education and Research