Performing CPR on minors without parental consent

[sarahmonkey]

I came across this lovely gem in a Facebook discussion today:

"did you know that in canada but most likely in the u.s as well if a child is uncouncous and you have to perform cpr to save it you have to ask the parents or else they canl sue u for not leaving it to die!"

My bullshit detector is going crazy.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by sarahmonkey

I came across this lovely gem in a Facebook discussion today:

"did you know that in canada but most likely in the u.s as well if a child is uncouncous and you have to perform cpr to save it you have to ask the parents or else they canl sue u for not leaving it to die!"

My bullshit detector is going crazy.

Good Samaritan laws, protect you, although not everywhere has them, (maybe because lawmakers that understand "mens rhea" recognize that good samaritan laws are unneccessary, and will wait until they need to earn a few extra votes before trying to make it law...)

Helping an unconcious person is presumed consent, that is, you have permission unless there's an objection.

---
On the other hand, if you come across a choking person who's still concious, then you cannot help them without his/her consent, or in the case of a child: without the parental consent if the parents/guardian are present.

Now usually how to help choking people is taught in a CPR class, so it's possible that someone wasn't paying enough attention, and remembered only part of it.

Or just a case of broken telephone, losing the part of "concious" and "choking" as its been retold.

Children: >12 years for girls, >14 years for boys.
Wouldnt need parental consent to help older minors as they've reached the age of general consent.

[TrekkerScout]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

On the other hand, if you come across a choking person who's still concious, then you cannot help them without his/her consent, or in the case of a child: without the parental consent if the parents/guardian are present.

In my last CPR/First Aid class, I had an instructor that had a morbid sense of humor (he also happens to be the lead EMT instructor for the Tacoma Fire Department). He informed the class that it is true that as long as the victim is conscious you will need to get their consent before initiating any treatments. However, he told the class that if the victim refuses treatment, just wait until the victim passes out. At that time, the unconscious victim has given you "implied consent" for any treatment necessary to save their life. He did make the comment that it is much easier to deal with unconscious victims since they have a tendancy of not fighting back.

He also mentioned the issue of parental consent and said the same basic principles apply. As long as the child is conscious, parental consent must be granted. As soon as the child lapses into unconsciousness, shove the parents out of the way and treat the child.

[FloridaGirl]

Technically, one might need consent, but point to somone who would turn it down. "No, I'd rather my child die, thanks."

One can argue implied consent in a lot of cases. "If someone is choking, can they really be thinking straight?"

[MapleLeaf]

Children: >12 years for girls, >14 years for boys.
Wouldnt need parental consent to help older minors as they've reached the age of general consent.

Why would the law differentiate between girls and boys when it comes to who is and is not a child? I know the obvious "girls mature faster" answer, but in a world of gender discrimination, this seems like it could cause problems.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf

Why would the law differentiate between girls and boys when it comes to who is and is not a child? I know the obvious "girls mature faster" answer, but in a world of gender discrimination, this seems like it could cause problems.

Mainly because, that's the way it's always been as the default, and the government hasn't changed the laws yet.

But even if its not "mature" faster there is an issue of girls being more aware of the adult world.

But, drawing a line in the sand is a discrimination in itself, (Some 11 year olds will be more mature than some 15 year olds) so arguing about gender discrimination is fairy irrelevant. The aim is to find a compromise that can work. It's more of a guideline, and is not a strict law, so parents would be more than welcome to treat their 12-13 year old boy the same as a girl if they so choose.

But that law only applies to things that haven't been defined yet, so for example, "unlawful abduction of a minor" applies to anyone under 14 regardless of sex. So any gender disrimination can be corrected with a law regarding each specific situation.

[Hero_Mike]

Sorry, but I've taken CPR and first aid every 2 to 3 years since I was 16, and for Canada, these stories are patently false.

DaGuyWitBluGlasses - you are perpetuating clear falsehoods. If you can provide a citation for these laws you claim exist in Canada, it would be appreciated.

That said, there is no Canadian law requiring consent from parents who would prefer that their child will die.

There is also no Canadian law which defines the maturity status of a child/teen based upon sex. I am certain that *any* laws with gender bias would have long since been corrected, since that would not be allowed according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 15 of the Charter explicitly states that : "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

This Charter has been in force since 1982. Not even age of consent laws for sexual activity, in Canada, are different based upon sex.

The bit about the choking person is another bit of BS - you don't have to wait until a person is unconscious - they merely have to be in "obvious distress". A person who is choking can't speak, and not being able to breathe means that they also, most likely, can't understand questions or give clear non-verbal answers. While there have been mistakes made in the past, my CPR instructors - *all* of them - have assured me that people are not going to face criminal charges for assault by trying to save someone in distress, and civil prosecution, even for injuries resulting from the attempt to save, have been similarly dismissed because there was no intent to injure.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Well let's see i actually took law in school, (several different courses)

That said, there is no Canadian law requiring consent from parents who would prefer that their child will die.

Not helping a conscious choking person is not letting that person die. (The body has methods of clearing the throat on its own, or a person can self-apply the heimlich manouver)
But they certainly can nod or shake their head to say yes and no.

Also maybe you missed the part where your CPR instructor said ask the victim if he/she can breathe cough. A person grabbing their neck doesn't necessarily mean a complete obstruction, and could simply be something caught at the very top of the throat. (Administering the heimlich manouver could cause him/her to choke in that situation)

And don't ever quote the Canadian Charter without actually reading the whole charter. Or without even reading the part you quoted, did you not see the part about "age" in their as well, and yet we're still allowed to say you can't vote under 18 years of age, can't drive under 16, can join the military at 17. The very nature of a cut-off age is a discriminiation, allowed by the charter, and so it is legal to make differences based on gender as shown to be reasonable, or even based on race (although I don't know of examples of this)

Also, assault isn't only a criminal charge. Without the burden to prove "mens rhea" in a civil trial, it'd be much more likely to face consequences there.

As for age of consent, looking up "voidable marriage" is one example of this, i can't say if it was ever written on a statute, or jsut something that comes from common law. If you have a canadian encyclopedia that's a couple decades old you might look up marriage in it to find that Quebec had a legal age of marriage of the same 12 for girls, 14 for boys, and the article might go on to explain that because the Government of Canada does not set the legal age of marriage, so by default it's 12 for girls, and 14 for boys (with parental consent, 18 without), provinces and territories are free to make their own laws regarding marriage. Quebec was the most recent to do so (and is now 16 with consent, 18 without)

But once again, the law doesn't come up very often, because as soon as laws are made about an issue it will pick one or the other (or a different age) (Young offenders act and its successor is an example of one that went for 12)

[RainyDaze]

Has anyone here worked as an EMT or actually performed CPR in an emergency situation? If so please speak up about CPR.

I have a friend who worked as an EMT for several years who described what doing CPR in a real life situation is like. If the patients heart has stopped the person doing CPR must apply enough pressure to break ribs. Otherwise no direct pressure is being applied to the heart. He mentioned that he did not learn this in CPR classes but instead learned it from other EMTs on the job.

I have no idea how true this is. If true however performing CPR on a child that did not actually need it could land you in a lot of trouble.

[Hero_Mike]

Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses

Well let's see i actually took law in school, (several different courses)

Not helping a conscious choking person is not letting that person die. (The body has methods of clearing the throat on its own, or a person can self-apply the heimlich manouver)
But they certainly can nod or shake their head to say yes and no.

Also maybe you missed the part where your CPR instructor said ask the victim if he/she can breathe cough. A person grabbing their neck doesn't necessarily mean a complete obstruction, and could simply be something caught at the very top of the throat. (Administering the heimlich manouver could cause him/her to choke in that situation)

And don't ever quote the Canadian Charter without actually reading the whole charter. Or without even reading the part you quoted, did you not see the part about "age" in their as well, and yet we're still allowed to say you can't vote under 18 years of age, can't drive under 16, can join the military at 17. The very nature of a cut-off age is a discriminiation, allowed by the charter, and so it is legal to make differences based on gender as shown to be reasonable, or even based on race (although I don't know of examples of this)

Also, assault isn't only a criminal charge. Without the burden to prove "mens rhea" in a civil trial, it'd be much more likely to face consequences there.

As for age of consent, looking up "voidable marriage" is one example of this, i can't say if it was ever written on a statute, or jsut something that comes from common law. If you have a canadian encyclopedia that's a couple decades old you might look up marriage in it to find that Quebec had a legal age of marriage of the same 12 for girls, 14 for boys, and the article might go on to explain that because the Government of Canada does not set the legal age of marriage, so by default it's 12 for girls, and 14 for boys (with parental consent, 18 without), provinces and territories are free to make their own laws regarding marriage. Quebec was the most recent to do so (and is now 16 with consent, 18 without)

But once again, the law doesn't come up very often, because as soon as laws are made about an issue it will pick one or the other (or a different age) (Young offenders act and its successor is an example of one that went for 12)

Would it help if I told you that I have also taken law courses? The first was a course called "Law and Government" back in 9th grade in 1984. I'm fairly sure that you mean to say that you've taken a higher level course, as have I, but that still doesn't increase the credibility of your statements. I notice from your profile that, based upon your age, you are not likely to be in law school, much less a practicing lawyer. This is not intended to be an insult about your age - but rather, that trying to lend credibility to your arguments through your own experience isn't going to work, because you don't have that experience yet.

I respectfully ask you, again, to provide a cite of any kind that there are any Canadian laws as you describe, specifically, where there is a distinction between when males or females reach any level of legally defined "maturity" at different ages. Since you mentioned this, I don't think I am out of line to ask for a cite.

First, *my* first-aid/CPR instructors made it clear to me that you can't always count on a person shaking their head as being a "clear signal" for giving consent. A person who is choking may thrash their head sideways. Furthermore, shaking the head up and down is not a universal signal for consent. For example, several Indian (the country, not aboriginal "Indians") expatriates have both demonstrated and explained to me that in their culture, shaking the head up and down meant "no". This being Canada, I live in a rather multicultural environment, and my instructors took the time to explain this exception to the norm. They also said that you should be cautious, but trust your instincts and help people. If the person can wave you away or force you away, then they usually don't want help. But the general assumption should be that a person in distress wants assistance unless they can clearly respond in the negative.

I should also have been more clear in my own post - the standard procedure taught in first aid is to first ask the person if they are choking or need help. If they can actually speak in reply, then they are not choking. However, a lack of verbal response to the question "do you need help", does not mean that the person doesn't require help.

Second, you aren't helping your argument about the "Charter of Rights" by bringing up that the age of marriage, in Quebec (or any part of Canada for that matter), a few decades ago, was different for males and females. Section 15 of the Charter has been in force since 1985, and I'm fairly certain that no laws like that remain, because they would not stand up to a court challenge. I'm talking about now and today, and not a few decades ago. It's no big secret that men and women used to be treated very differently before the law, sometimes with respect to age, but mostly there was a general difference in how men and women were seen before the law. Those laws are now invalid based upon the Charter. Your point is valid, but not in the context of the OP, which refers to the present day.

Third, driving, consuming alcohol, and even joining the military are not protected rights. They may be defined in law, but are not protected by law. I know several people - adults - both male and female - who are otherwise "equal" before the law, but cannot obtain either a drivers' license or join the military because of medical conditions. Is this a case of the protection against "mental or physical disability" in the Charter? No, it is not. This should be clear to someone who has taken law courses.

But then again, the issue is not that there are different "privileges" and even "rights" - such as the right to vote - which are dependent upon age. The issue is that those ages *must* be the same for both genders in Canada, and I think that I've proven this point.

Fourth - what is "mens rhea"? A "rhea" is a large flightless bird from South America. The term is "mens rea", and means "guilty mind". You are right - this does not apply to civil suits. However, even if there is no legal protection for "good samaritans" in Canada, there is legal precedent for it. My CPR instructors have all declared very proudly that there is no case of a successful lawsuit for civil damages, against a person acting to save another. This is, even in the case of incidental injury, which is likely during "vigorous" performance of CPR. I dare say that the organization providing the instruction would not risk liability for spreading a falsehood. If I'm wrong about this - and there is a case of a successful civil suit due to unintentional "incidental" injury during the application first aid (including choking victims and CPR), then I would ask that you provide a cite.

There is, of course, one exemption to this, and that has to do with the incorrect application of first aid. If a person is *not* trained in CPR, does not recognize a person's distress, ignores their refusal of help, and still thumps on someone's chest until their ribs break, then it may be a different story. But I dare say that the benefit of the doubt would lie with be with the person giving assistance, unless there are witnesses to the contrary. Assuming that a person is choking or having trouble breathing, and using this an excuse to beat someone up,

Fifth, I question to your tone - "Don't ever quote the charter of rights without reading the whole charter". What do you mean by this?

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by RainyDaze

Has anyone here worked as an EMT or actually performed CPR in an emergency situation? If so please speak up about CPR.

I have a friend who worked as an EMT for several years who described what doing CPR in a real life situation is like. If the patients heart has stopped the person doing CPR must apply enough pressure to break ribs. Otherwise no direct pressure is being applied to the heart. He mentioned that he did not learn this in CPR classes but instead learned it from other EMTs on the job.

I have no idea how true this is. If true however performing CPR on a child that did not actually need it could land you in a lot of trouble.

(Wolf raises hand)

Yep, I was doing the chest compressions, while another (more experienced) lifeguard was doing the breathes. You do not HAVE to break ribs, but when you get in that situation, your adrenaline is up and you just want their heart to pump, you might crack a rib. At one time, I was told to "calm down, you don't need to push that hard." The paramedics arrived in about 20 minutes, took over for us and carried the guy out. I was sore for about three days.

In reality, you only need about 2-3 inches of compression, and you do that when you take a deep breath.

I worked as an EMT and did chest compressions. You certainly don't HAVE to break ribs but it is highly likely that you will. I found most often that if you are performing CPR for more than a few minutes, ribs will start to crack. Although the rib-cage is fairly flexible and forgiving, it just isn't ment to be squished repeatly. As Wolf said as well, there is a component of adrenaline to be considered. I don't care how many times you do it, CPR is not a casual situation and the adrenaline is always going to be flowing.

The important thing to remember (at least here in the US) is that you are protected under Good Samaritan Laws only so long as you are practicing within the scope of your training. As long as you are trained in CPR, and the person is not does not have a heartbeat...you are going to be protected under Good Samaritain. If you have never been trained, but saw it on TV once, you are not going to be protected under Good Samaratian.

I took a first aid/CPR class a few months ago as part of my teacher training. The instructor said that it was a matter of what level of certification you have that determines your liability for acting/not acting. In a school situation not rendering assistance would be considered gross neglegence unless there were mitigating circumstances such as the situation being to dangerous to render aid.

If the parent is present, they should be asked first - otherwise consent is assumed if the person is unconsious.

[FloridaGirl]

Just to repeat what others have said, one does not HAVE to break ribs. It can happen in some situations, ostoperosis or just sheer repetition.

Nowadays, most EMTs/paramedics/lifeguards use AEDs (automated external defibulators) on adults. It's more effective and safer. And, as anyone who had ever had to do CPR will note, a lot less exercise.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by FloridaGirl

Just to repeat what others have said, one does not HATE to break ribs.

You cruel person!

[FloridaGirl]

Originally Posted by BringTheNoise

You cruel person!

Whatever are you talking about?

[Luka_the_Pooka]

Originally Posted by LadyAnnora

The important thing to remember (at least here in the US) is that you are protected under Good Samaritan Laws only so long as you are practicing within the scope of your training. As long as you are trained in CPR, and the person is not does not have a heartbeat...you are going to be protected under Good Samaritain. If you have never been trained, but saw it on TV once, you are not going to be protected under Good Samaratian.

Wait - so if you only have a vague idea about CPR, and someone without a heartbeat is dying in front of you, it's better not to even try to help them because you could then be sued?

And isn't there a law against NOT helping people? Like if you witness a stabbing and don't help the victum, and they bleed to death?

[FloridaGirl]

If you do not know how to do CPR, DO NOT ATTEMPT IT. To can do more harm than good. Call 911. See if someone else knows CPR. Never attempt CPR if you are not trained.

ETA: No idea if you could get sued or not. But watching ER doesn't give one the knowledge to attempt CPR.

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by Luka_the_Pooka

Wait - so if you only have a vague idea about CPR, and someone without a heartbeat is dying in front of you, it's better not to even try to help them because you could then be sued?

If it makes you feel better, you can only be sued if the person dies. You can go ahead and try to save them, but once you start, you better finish and you better get it right.

And isn't there a law against NOT helping people? Like if you witness a stabbing and don't help the victum, and they bleed to death?

Nope.

[BringTheNoise]

Originally Posted by Luka_the_Pooka

And isn't there a law against NOT helping people? Like if you witness a stabbing and don't help the victum, and they bleed to death?

That's perferctly legal, unless you owe the person a duty of care (e.g. the person stabbed is your child).