Thread: Doctor penalised for failing to assist after car crash

Originally Posted by Kevin B

Actually R= Response , determine the injured persons level of response to stimuli and assess there level of consciousness.

Exactly. The "first" on scene is the first aider, you should do what you can and the good samaritan law applies to all, not just doctors.

When someone more qualified arrives, they take over and you assist. You send someone else to get assistance, not leave the victim, sometimes it is as simple as tilting the head back on an unconscious slumped forward patient, reopening the airway and if there is no other major issue, youve saved them, leave them slumped for two minutes, its often too late.

R is for Response not get a responder, simply put, you dont commence ABC until youve tried to get a response, in some situations (i was taught) person may be asleep and you open their mouth to check for obstructions, embarrassing situation when they wake and find you poking around...

The story of the accident sounds dodgy to me and theres no second opinion as that person died, seems strange that she drove up embankment to avoid supposed out of control vehicle, narrowly missed her behind...when? Whilst she was in the intersection? Anyway I cant conclude that she didnt contribute to the accident and the details are bloody thin...that puts a different light on it IMHO. Didn't have her phone? Yeh right, if the place is as dodgy as others say, and I agree it is as Ive been nearby, then why wasnt she carrying a phone in case she broke down or otherwise needed help, doesnt make sense, especially as a medico, may even be on call???

Why couldnt it be safe to lock her doors and drive up to the crashed vehicle and at least assess the situation without putting herself in danger, i.e. she can still drive slowly and look, booting it if needed, maybe wind the window down and yell out "are you Ok?".

Internet story is probably just a publicity stunt from AMA to support some other impending decision or proposed change to legislation, as the event was 2002 and decision 2009, they're clutching at straws for something else, we will probably hear about in 5 years time.

My thoughts go to the victim, nothing I read indicates drunk or out of control before the interaction/avoidance at the intersection.

Yes I have a mum, wife and daughter, Im thinking if they were out alone without their phones Id be questioning why...Id also like to think that if they were to run off the road in a similar situation, that the other party would check before leaving the scene, regardless of the fact they went to the police station, just seems odd, even with the known native issues....just going by the facts and statements as limited as they are.

Sticks and stones etc.. just an opinion as others have stated.

Don't forget it was 2002 and not everyone had a mobile phone then........

2002, mate, no mobile service in Roebourne.....certainly not outside the town....

It's hard enough getting coverage up there now!

Reading the court transcripts, she didn't cause or contribute to the crash, but had to move her stationary car to avoid being hit by the other one.

C'mon, no lights, no torches, no first aid kit, social issues of the area, 5 mins from police station, didn't see the crash, only heard it, no way of contacting help other than to leave the scene.....unlikely another car would be along, and if it was, it would more than likely be more trouble.....

She did not know what the crash was or it's severity, it was pitch black. How the hell can you render assistance if you can't see.....car lights can only light up so much.

She went straight to police....not home first or anywhere else....

Like most armchair umpires, the medical board refused to acknowledge those environmental factors....
After reading the transcripts, I still believe she did the right thing in those circumstances FOR THAT LOCATION. It's got nothing to do with racism, just simple facts of personal safety at the time.

As I said before, all this will do is deter people from even reporting because they will be more concerned about this result than doing the right thing.

Cheers all
Kev

Hi Kev, I'm happy to acknowledge you know more on the subject than I do, from some points you mention I accept there MAY be more to the story. But from the very little referenced, and the fact it was mentioned she didnt have her phone (why would that come up if not relevant Im unsure), I still accept my opinion ( and that of others including yourself sir ) is just that of arm chair critics.

Im sure she's a good sort and done a lot of good...its just a sad story and even more sad social scene that allows someone the indignity of no aid in such a critical moment. I hope none of us ever end up going out like that.

cheers.

armchair juror rests.

I can't help feeling that instead of focusing on the person who didn't stop, the focus perhaps should be on the reasons why some one would feel it unsafe to do so. And, I lived in the Territory for a few years, back in the 80's , so don't think I don't know. The fact that nothing has changed much, between then & now, a National disgrace. Bob

Hey no offence intended. As I said, no phone service up there at that time. So why carry one?

People have been found not guilty in court for not stopping after a crash because they were scared of repercussions. They went straight to a police station instead. What's the difference here? How many times do you read in the paper now about people being assaulted after crashes? No wonder people are not stopping...and that's nowadays, never mind in 2002 out in the sticks in an environment such as this event.

Originally Posted by bob10

I can't help feeling that instead of focusing on the person who didn't stop, the focus perhaps should be on the reasons why some one would feel it unsafe to do so. And, I lived in the Territory for a few years, back in the 80's , so don't think I don't know. The fact that nothing has changed much, between then & now, a National disgrace. Bob

I hear what you are saying mate and yes, that is the biggest disgrace. Makes it hard for all of us.

Originally Posted by Greatsouthernland

Hi Kev, I'm happy to acknowledge you know more on the subject than I do, from some points you mention I accept there MAY be more to the story. But from the very little referenced, and the fact it was mentioned she didnt have her phone (why would that come up if not relevant Im unsure), I still accept my opinion ( and that of others including yourself sir ) is just that of arm chair critics.

Im sure she's a good sort and done a lot of good...its just a sad story and even more sad social scene that allows someone the indignity of no aid in such a critical moment. I hope none of us ever end up going out like that.

cheers.

armchair juror rests.

It probably came up now as the article was written by some one under 30 who cannot conceive a time with out mobile phones