Which Legal Issue Complicates the Use of Aeds Apex
11 The question posed here is what problem makes it difficult to use a d to store the response group. The choice is given and we must choose the right answer to the question. The correct answer is option d: Maintaining help is anyone who has the slightest practice they can use and support. Hourglasses are designed to benefit people with the least strength, they carefully use extreme pressure conditions, they have different belt shields. I give a shock, especially if the a e d identifies 1. Further vibrations may be required, a loud voice that helps accompany the use in the process. Eras, lightweight portable device. That is the correct answer to the question. I hope you find the solution useful.
Best wishes. An important provision of the CBCA grants certain AED users conditional legal immunity from the Good Samaritan for damages resulting from the use or attempted use of the device.6 Purchasers of AEDs enjoy similar immunity when certain requirements are met. AED trainers and medical supervisors do not enjoy immunity under this legislation. How CASA immunity and AED immunity under state law (see section on Good Samaritan Law below) are applied in certain situations remains a complex and unanswered question. Given that both were dismissed on technical grounds, neither the United nor Northwest Airlines cases offer much clue as to how future appellate courts might deal with issues related to the defibrillation of public access. Appellate courts, which consider notions of suitability in other medical contexts, have generally resisted in the past requiring ordinary freight forwarders, restaurateurs and commercial enterprises faced with ill or injured guests to do more than call an ambulance. However, two recent court decisions indicate a trend towards higher standards that require the protection of customers` health and safety in certain business contexts. A successful action for negligence also requires proof that the alleged misconduct caused legally recognized harm, such as death or injury. Three possible theories of causality include allegations that a death is directly attributable to: 1) failure to purchase and provide an AED; 2) failure to use an available AED; or 3) inappropriate use of an available AED.
Some aspects of the current federal legislation are unclear. For example, FDA regulations do not describe the exact nature and scope of medical advice or training required to use AEDs. Some help on the issue of medical surveillance is a statement in a consumer information document published by the FDA`s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), which states that “a physician overseeing the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) program at a facility must write a prescription for the AED in order for the facility to purchase it. 2 This suggests that an AED prescription is device-specific rather than patient-specific. With respect to training matters, the same document states: 1Note: The information in this chapter does not constitute legal advice. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of information, AED`s legal and regulatory landscape is changing rapidly. The legal issues surrounding the use of AEDs can be complex. If your community needs specific advice, seek the services of a competent lawyer. 2www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/AED_PAD.html. 3Ibid. (emphasis added). 4Public Health Improvement Act, sections 401 to 404.
5Ibid., article 403. 6Ibid., Article 404. 7Public Health Improvement Act, sections 411 to 413. 8Pub. L. 105-170, 49 USC 44701. 9Edition. 1995;92:2740-2747 10W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 53, p. 356 (5th ed. 1984). 11Ibid.
12Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A. 13Somes v. United Airlines, Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d 78 (US District Court, D. Massachusetts 1999) 14Talit v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 58 Conn. App. 102, 752 A.2d 1131 (2000). Defibrillation, administered as soon as possible after the onset of sudden cardiac arrest, has the ability to significantly improve a victim`s chances of survival. Therefore, ordinary freight forwarders, restaurateurs and commercial enterprises that do not purchase and use AEDs are at the greatest risk in terms of proof of causation. However, this relative risk is quite low given the generally low survival associated with sudden cardiac arrest. Then, in order of risk, there are situations where an AED is available but misused.
This scenario is unlikely because the modern generation of AEDs, with proper training, is both easy to use and difficult to abuse. Companies that purchase AEDs and use them correctly have the least risk of causation. Although the first defibrillation programs began in the mid-1990s, only two calls found so far directly address the problem of early defibrillation initiated by non-medical professionals, and each of these companies deals with commercial airlines. In one case, United Airlines was sued by the widow of a man who suffered sudden cardiac death on a domestic flight in 199513. The widow claimed that United was liable “because she had not equipped her aircraft with certain medical equipment, including an automatic external defibrillator, and because her husband would have survived if the emergency medical equipment during the flight had included such equipment.” The case was recently settled after United tried unsuccessfully to close the case on technical grounds.