|One more thing|
Posted by Ken Kurtis on December 23, 2008 at 13:01:55:|
In Reply to: Reading it wrong posted by Ken Kurtis on December 23, 2008 at 12:50:09:
Here's the quote from the article you posted:
"But the court's ruling Thursday written by Associate Justice Carlos Moreno clarified the law by writing the lawmakers in 1980 intended to protect "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency.
"The medical care, the court ruled, is designed to protect medical personnel with sufficient training to provide such care.
"The dissenting judges argued that such a distinction places "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on people who try to help in a medical emergency. They furthered argued the intent of the Legislature in 1980 was to encourage compassionate response and help, not discourage it by the threat of civil action."
Interpretation from another source (LA Times) talks about the ruling as eliminating protection for non-medical aid, not non-medical people. And note even in the Sabatini article (the one you linked) it talks about "medical personnel with sufficient training to provide such care" which could be argued would apply to someone with CPR training or other appropriate civilian "medical" training.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.