生粒痣﹐長一智: 12/2008

明愛醫院女職員「見死不救」﹐高層堅持沒有做錯。這就是法治的副作用--多了法治﹐少了人情﹔多了規則﹐少了人性。也許那幾個明愛職員都是美國加州回流香港--滿腦子法律責任﹖某程度上﹐那女職員的行為是可以明白的(假如她當時真的是在想她的"法律責任")。為了一個外人的生死﹐負上刑事或民事責任﹐輸了自己的一生。這是文明社會不容許的﹗真可悲﹗

"好心着雷劈"在美國絕不罕見。以下是一個近期美國加州的"好心人"個案。A小姐撞了車。B小姐嘗試把A小姐救出﹐但不幸地把A小姐弄到癱了。A小姐控告B小姐﹐要B小姐賠償。B小姐以為"好心人"法例會保障好心人。但美國加州最高法院幾天前裁定好心人法例不保障B小姐﹔A小姐可以控告B小姐。法院判辭說﹕人沒有責任幫助其他人﹐假如自行幫助他人的話﹐要自己承擔所有後果和責任。

看來不但港元和美元掛鈎﹐香港的人性和法律思想也開始和美國掛鈎了。看來在不久的將來﹐港人會像"責任思想"的美國人一樣﹕看到有人撞車,連報警也不會--裝作看不見就是了。

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection

LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

--------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/18/BAUV14QQIS.DTL&feed=rss.news

A Good Samaritan whose well-meaning but careless rescue effort injures an accident victim can be sued for damages, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court said California's shield against liability for emergency help applies only to people trying to provide medical help.

The 4-3 ruling allows a 27-year-old Los Angeles woman to go to trial in her suit against a friend who pulled her out of a wrecked car and, in the process, allegedly caused injuries that left her permanently paralyzed. The friend, Lisa Torti, said she had seen smoke and thought the car was about to explode, but other witnesses said they had seen no signs of danger.

The court majority said the law Torti cited to try to dismiss the lawsuit was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently. Dissenting justices said the ruling would discourage people from trying to save lives.

The case dates from 2004, when a group of friends including Torti and Alexandra Van Horn left a bar in suburban Chatsworth (Los Angeles County) in two cars after a Halloween party.

The car in which Van Horn was a passenger went out of control and hit a light pole. Torti, in the other car, pulled Van Horn out just before emergency crews arrived to take her to the hospital, where she underwent surgery for a spinal cord injury and a lacerated liver.

Torti testified that she had carried her friend out carefully, with one arm under her legs and one behind her back. But Van Horn said Torti had grabbed her by the arm and yanked her out.

Other witnesses said Torti had set Van Horn down next to the car, despite Torti's testimony that she was worried the vehicle would blow up.

Torti sought to dismiss the suit under a 1980 state law that bars damage suits against anyone who "in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency" - even for negligent acts that injure the victim.

Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.

--------------
Source: http://www.mingpaonews.com/20081222/gaa2.htm

【明報專訊】有心臟病人在醫院門外疑失救死亡，明愛醫院昨日為事件解畫時承認，一名心臟病人前日在醫院正門外暈倒後，其家屬即時走入醫院向一名職員求助，職員建議家屬自行致電999報警而沒代向急症室求援，最後令該名病人在院外百米之處折騰26分鐘後才送抵醫院，經搶救後死亡。該院行政總監馬學章坦言醫院職員未有即時通知急症室是有不足之處，但堅稱死者位處不在醫院範圍內，故有關職員「已盡了力」及「跟足指引做」。院方全程未有承認犯錯及道歉。

病人互助組織聯盟主席張德喜炮轟明愛的指引僵化，批評前線職員抱覑「少做少錯」心態辦事，病人「未入到醫院就不理，完全不能接受」。立法會衛生事務委員會主席李國麟、委員何秀蘭認為感情上，明愛這樣僵化處理在醫院門外昏倒的市民於情不合，要求食物及衛生局長周一嶽在立法會交代事件。

事發後，有輿論直指明愛「見死不救」，至昨日下午，明愛行政總監馬學章與明愛醫院急症室主管吳奎，在醫管局質素及安全總監梁聣賢等人陪同下會見記者交代事件始末。馬學章指死者家屬在前日下午2時43分，曾走入醫院向一名女職員求助，該職員即按醫院指引，建議事主致電999求助，而沒有通知急症室或任何醫護人員。其間，明愛一名姓韋醫生路經事發地點，發現病人已無脈搏，即時為病人急救，但急症室就沒有派醫護前往。

新指引：對面街也要報警

馬學章解釋，女職員當時在詢問處內看不到病人，加上報警時要正確說出地點、病人狀，所以當時的做法是「最正確」。他指根據醫院指引，職員面對求助事故時應叫對方致電999，但如何處理醫院範圍外的突發事故就無清晰指引給員工。明愛醫院昨晚回覆本報查詢時補充，該院10月才檢討處理有關事故的指引，若有市民在醫院外一街之隔求救，職員應建議事主報警。馬又為該職員辯護，指該職員從未遇過同類事故，事發後4分鐘發現救傷車未到，已通知消防處救護組駐該院聯絡主任，她現時受到很大壓力及困擾。

明愛醫院急症室主管吳奎解釋，當時急症室沒派員前往救援，是因為當時已知道消防處先遣急救員已到達，在急症室為接收該病人作準備會更合適。他強調，消防處先遣隊有輕便的「心臟除顫機」，可盡快救治病人，醫院大堂並沒有這類儀器，將來有可能加裝。

歸咎醫院路牌指示不足

他又將事件歸咎於醫院附近的路牌指示不足，致病人親屬去錯門口，延誤病情。馬學章表示，該處有3條道路通往急症室，「很不幸司機不知道，以為駛至醫院門口便可得到治理，其實醫院範圍內有足夠指引指示急症室位置」，但就承認醫院附近路口指示不足，將與當局檢討考慮加裝路牌。