If someone needs CPR, all that goes out the window. If someone has watched a tiktok vid that gives them the basic knowledge to say ‘this guy’s not breathing. I’m going to try to help him,’ any policy that says ‘no’ is idiotic. CPR is so ineffective already, worrying about how recently trained people are is a gross distortion of priorities. If they need CPR, it’d be nigh impossible to make their day worse. Same goes for worrying about the trauma of performing CPR where it doesn’t actually save the person, which is the vast majority of cases. It’s going to be traumatic no matter what if your coworker is dying, but the idea that you’re going to prioritize the possible emotional trauma of the basically healthy individual over the literal life and death situation of their coworker is a wild way to triage that scene.
It’s all just liability dodging. If only the managers/safety people are supposed to do it, the company can’t be sued for ‘letting’ untrained personnel help. If the policy says ‘don’t help’ the company can’t be held liable for the workplace mental injury of the trauma of helping. Telling people who aren’t helping to keep the area clear is sensible, though.
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.
If someone needs CPR, all that goes out the window. If someone has watched a tiktok vid that gives them the basic knowledge to say ‘this guy’s not breathing. I’m going to try to help him,’ any policy that says ‘no’ is idiotic. CPR is so ineffective already, worrying about how recently trained people are is a gross distortion of priorities. If they need CPR, it’d be nigh impossible to make their day worse. Same goes for worrying about the trauma of performing CPR where it doesn’t actually save the person, which is the vast majority of cases. It’s going to be traumatic no matter what if your coworker is dying, but the idea that you’re going to prioritize the possible emotional trauma of the basically healthy individual over the literal life and death situation of their coworker is a wild way to triage that scene.
It’s all just liability dodging. If only the managers/safety people are supposed to do it, the company can’t be sued for ‘letting’ untrained personnel help. If the policy says ‘don’t help’ the company can’t be held liable for the workplace mental injury of the trauma of helping. Telling people who aren’t helping to keep the area clear is sensible, though.
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.