Its definitely liability related but my point was that good policies can be interpreted poorly.
The company has people it KNOWS are first aid trained and they were trained recently. Letting someone who claims to know take precedence over someone who definitely does would be bad policy, switching out for someone who is documented as trained asap is good policy. First aiders need to sign waivers and forms saying they accept the risks and responsibilities, which limits the liability of the company if Bob doesnt make it or Bob had hepatitis. Standard corporate BS but sensible policy.
Some idiot interprets the policy poorly, reads it as “have the person relived by first aiders only” and refuses to let anyone else help.
Again, that all goes out the window in the case of an actual emergency. The person needs help. In NO case should corporate liability dodging be the reason someone doesn’t get help, regardless of the precise wording of the policy. A policy that can be readily misinterpreted as ‘authorized responders only’ is a bad policy. A policy that places further limitations on the already minimal number of people who could/would volunteer to help is a bad policy. A policy that makes people unsure of what to do is a bad policy. It’s really that simple. Safety and survival trump company liability dodging every single time.
Its definitely liability related but my point was that good policies can be interpreted poorly.
The company has people it KNOWS are first aid trained and they were trained recently. Letting someone who claims to know take precedence over someone who definitely does would be bad policy, switching out for someone who is documented as trained asap is good policy. First aiders need to sign waivers and forms saying they accept the risks and responsibilities, which limits the liability of the company if Bob doesnt make it or Bob had hepatitis. Standard corporate BS but sensible policy.
Some idiot interprets the policy poorly, reads it as “have the person relived by first aiders only” and refuses to let anyone else help.
Again, that all goes out the window in the case of an actual emergency. The person needs help. In NO case should corporate liability dodging be the reason someone doesn’t get help, regardless of the precise wording of the policy. A policy that can be readily misinterpreted as ‘authorized responders only’ is a bad policy. A policy that places further limitations on the already minimal number of people who could/would volunteer to help is a bad policy. A policy that makes people unsure of what to do is a bad policy. It’s really that simple. Safety and survival trump company liability dodging every single time.