Illegal To Use Heart Defibrillator In Thailand

[simon43]

Following my recent thread about having raised sufficient funds to purchase a heart defibrillator, I should also comment that prior to my fundraising efforts, I was aware (from speaking to Thai doctors), that using a heart defibrillator in Thailand is illegal (!), unless the user is a Thai doctor.

I was also advised to discretely ignore this regulation...

However, it does raise the question of being sued should a heart attack victom fail to be revived with a defibrillator.

The fact that these types of equipments are simple enough to be operated by a non-medical person, (machine gives voice-prompts etc), seems to have been ignored when this regulation was introduced.

Also, AEDs are most likely to be useful in locations where no doctor is present, such as shopping centers or at home. That is really what the voice-prompting AEDs were designed for.

So, it may be just hearsay. But I'd be very interested to locate any hard evidence that a regulation forbidding use of an AED by anyone other than a Thai doctor actually exists.

Simon

[mijan24]

Simon43 PM me an email contact and I will send you a very interesting one on heart attacks. Unfortunately in its current format I am unable to upload it to Thai Visa. It is worth a read could save yours or someones life.

[neverdie]

Simon,

Interesting news, something I didnt know (then again, i know nofing!).

Wouldnt you be best to see one of your supervisors at work (volunteer job) & have this issue addressed. No point spending all that cash on the defib if your gonna go to jail after using it.

[PoorSucker]

If you even perform CPR and the patient dies, family will sue you.

[neverdie]

If you even perform CPR and the patient dies, family will sue you.

Possibly true, it would depend on the family, I performed CPR once here in thailand and the person survived.....the chance of sustaining life for someone far outweighs the worries of some idiot sueing me.

I would suggest it would be up to the individual to pick his mark, which is something I practise anyway, in the interest of self preservation.

[TAWP]

That 'sue'-myth might be more relevant to the US...

[neverdie]

That 'sue'-myth might be more relevant to the US...

Sad to think that someone might be moments from death but people refuse to help (perhaps only clear an airway)!

Fairly simple <deleted> really....if unsuccessful you can exit stage left without leaving your calling card, crikey its not that hard.

[simon43]

I am aware that in the US, many people consider that the use of an AED is simply to keep the heart 'alive' until it can be donated.....

But it's the legal issue here in Thailand. As I mentioned, some doctors have told me about this rule, but none seem able to actuallr produce the evidence that such a rule exists.

Simon

[noahvail]

I am aware that in the US, many people consider that the use of an AED is simply to keep the heart 'alive' until it can be donated.....

But it's the legal issue here in Thailand. As I mentioned, some doctors have told me about this rule, but none seem able to actuallr produce the evidence that such a rule exists.

Simon

My understanding is that in the States, volunteers and lay people are covered in every state by "Good Samaritan" laws - they cannot be sued. Paid health staff, from doctors to emts (not to belittle emts, they're the tops in my book) are able to be sued, which is why they have malpractice insurance; and high malpractice insurance premiums are a goodly portion of the increasingly high rates of health care in the States.

In Thailand, if the law says you can't, then 'up to you' - is it worth the personal risk compared to the potential benefit? With CPR, there's an 18% chance that you will be able to revive the person; so if you do CPR on 5 different individuals, statistics will say that maybe...just maybe... you can save them.

I don't know the percentage that can be saved with a defib machine, but makes sense that it would be much higher, since many times you'd be using it *before* the heart actually stopped. Anyway, when I book seats on a plane I always ask to be close to where the defib machine is located.

Quote for the 'show your age group' : "I'm not a doctor, but I do play one on TV."

[samuibeachcomber]

while i think simon's cause is admirable i can see it being fraught with danger for himself.We are talking thailand here.Saving or not be able to save a farang would i think not have serious consequences from the victims family,they would see that the best had been done in the circumstances.but to a thai person and in particular their family if anything went wrong i could see big problems,most of it being money in compensation.and of course the thai law or its interpretation.Just my 2 satangs worth.

[simon43]

Easy answer - just ignore any Thais who are dying of heart attacks....

Simon

[samuibeachcomber]

Easy answer - just ignore any Thais who are dying of heart attacks....

Simon

[samuibeachcomber]

Easy answer - just ignore any Thais who are dying of heart attacks....

Simon

or just make sure your cell phone is in credit to phone the local quacks.

[john b good]

If you even perform CPR and the patient dies, family will sue you.

And that is exactly where the Thai mentality comes into play.

OK, so hubby, boyfriend, father, mother, sister, friend, dies, lets screw every last satang out of the person who tried his damnedest to keep the casualty alive.

As for whether it's illegal or not (to use a defib) in Thailand I wouldn't be surprised. TIT

[neverdie]

One of the first golden rules of first aid....DANGER! SELF PRESERVATION... One must check for danger & in this case that may not be represented by fallen power lines.

Edited February 7, 2009 by neverdie

[sbk]

Has anyone yet come up with the relevant law? Perhaps an email to a lawyer would answer the question.

[Maizefarmer]

Doctor or qualified person - meaning someone who is quailfied to use the defib machine?

Good Samaritan (and TORT) law (s) are recognised in Thailand, and not withstanding anything on the books, push come shove I doubt any court would proceed with a prosecution if the alternative (under whatever the circumstances were) was going to be the death of the patient (which it always is in the case of someone who has cardiac arrest and stops breathing, unless revived).

Surely one does not have to be a doctor - having law like that amounts to allowing people to turn their backs in many different "life and death" situations when their intervention would/could othewise save a life.

Yes - they may well be able to sue you, I doubt though (so long as it could be demonstrated your actions did not contribute to the death of the individual), they'd have any success.

Find a law student and ask them to do some research for any precedent cases, the cirumstances and the outcomes.

[Mogli]

There seems to be a similar issue with applying oxygen in a emergency.

We trained thai lay persons in CPR and EFR and got told by thai Dr.that any thai lay person can be sued for administering oxygen to a victim.

Would be interesting to know what the law actually says.

[simon43]

Mogli - that's interesting...

Is it illegal for lay persons to apply sticking plasters as well I wonder?

The plot thickens...

[JetsetBkk]

...Is it illegal for lay persons to apply sticking plasters as well I wonder?...

You may have to apply it with your right hand...

[Freddie_fly]

Doctor or qualified person - meaning someone who is quailfied to use the defib machine?

Good Samaritan (and TORT) law (s) are recognised in Thailand, and not withstanding anything on the books, push come shove I doubt any court would proceed with a prosecution if the alternative (under whatever the circumstances were) was going to be the death of the patient (which it always is in the case of someone who has cardiac arrest and stops breathing, unless revived).

Surely one does not have to be a doctor - having law like that amounts to allowing people to turn their backs in many different "life and death" situations when their intervention would/could othewise save a life.

Yes - they may well be able to sue you, I doubt though (so long as it could be demonstrated your actions did not contribute to the death of the individual), they'd have any success.

Find a law student and ask them to do some research for any precedent cases, the cirumstances and the outcomes.

I would be interested to see some evidence of this. I have always been informed that Good Samaritan laws are NOT recognised in Thailand. We are required to carry a Paramedic onboard our ships and to conform to First Aid level 2 requirements (which includes AED's and CPR) I personally know two Paramedics who are very familiar with Thailand and they specifically said that Good Samaritan laws are not recognised here.

We are also taught that even in Countries with good samaritan laws we must Identify ourselves as trained first aides and obtain the consent of the victim before helping them (In most countries consent is implied if the victim is unconsious or unable to respond.

I have many times 'almost' stopped to help in road accidents only to be told specifically by Thai's with me not to get involved.

regards

Freddie

[simon43]

Hi Freddie, although it sounds rather callous, I maybe would think twice before using an AED on a Thai victim. Perhaps more realistic than callous...

I think I'll ask their permission first

Simon

[Briggsy]

Could you imagine all those techno college lads razzing around in their converted Ruam Katanyu and Por Teck Tung station wagons gagging to try out their heart defibrillators on anyone. The mind boggles. Very scary.

[haybilly]

Doctor or qualified person - meaning someone who is quailfied to use the defib machine?

Good Samaritan (and TORT) law (s) are recognised in Thailand, and not withstanding anything on the books, push come shove I doubt any court would proceed with a prosecution if the alternative (under whatever the circumstances were) was going to be the death of the patient (which it always is in the case of someone who has cardiac arrest and stops breathing, unless revived).

Surely one does not have to be a doctor - having law like that amounts to allowing people to turn their backs in many different "life and death" situations when their intervention would/could othewise save a life.

Yes - they may well be able to sue you, I doubt though (so long as it could be demonstrated your actions did not contribute to the death of the individual), they'd have any success.

Find a law student and ask them to do some research for any precedent cases, the cirumstances and the outcomes.

I would be interested to see some evidence of this. I have always been informed that Good Samaritan laws are NOT recognised in Thailand. We are required to carry a Paramedic onboard our ships and to conform to First Aid level 2 requirements (which includes AED's and CPR) I personally know two Paramedics who are very familiar with Thailand and they specifically said that Good Samaritan laws are not recognised here.

We are also taught that even in Countries with good samaritan laws we must Identify ourselves as trained first aides and obtain the consent of the victim before helping them (In most countries consent is implied if the victim is unconsious or unable to respond.

I have many times 'almost' stopped to help in road accidents only to be told specifically by Thai's with me not to get involved.

regards

Freddie

Whilst this is undoubtedly true in Thailand,[ and I can concur that my ex-wife often said that we should not get involved when approaching a road accident] the situation is much worse in India--people are so scared of getting involved with, or in some way associated with, an accident victim that they will look away and scurry past--this is generally not due to the possibility of being sued but the likelihood of being stung for any payments incurred when treating the victim--ambulance bills, hospital/Dr.'s fees etc..at least this was very much the case during the 20 plus years that I spent travelling around and working there.

I even came across a dead body in a small soi by a large hotel and, when entering said hotel to try to call for assistance was asked "why--is it a relative of yours?"--considering the fact that it was the body of a south Indian,[ i.e. black as coal] this seemed somewhat fatuous!

[Freddie_fly]

Doctor or qualified person - meaning someone who is quailfied to use the defib machine?

Good Samaritan (and TORT) law (s) are recognised in Thailand, and not withstanding anything on the books, push come shove I doubt any court would proceed with a prosecution if the alternative (under whatever the circumstances were) was going to be the death of the patient (which it always is in the case of someone who has cardiac arrest and stops breathing, unless revived).

Surely one does not have to be a doctor - having law like that amounts to allowing people to turn their backs in many different "life and death" situations when their intervention would/could othewise save a life.

Yes - they may well be able to sue you, I doubt though (so long as it could be demonstrated your actions did not contribute to the death of the individual), they'd have any success.

Find a law student and ask them to do some research for any precedent cases, the cirumstances and the outcomes.

I would be interested to see some evidence of this. I have always been informed that Good Samaritan laws are NOT recognised in Thailand. We are required to carry a Paramedic onboard our ships and to conform to First Aid level 2 requirements (which includes AED's and CPR) I personally know two Paramedics who are very familiar with Thailand and they specifically said that Good Samaritan laws are not recognised here.

We are also taught that even in Countries with good samaritan laws we must Identify ourselves as trained first aides and obtain the consent of the victim before helping them (In most countries consent is implied if the victim is unconsious or unable to respond.

I have many times 'almost' stopped to help in road accidents only to be told specifically by Thai's with me not to get involved.

regards

Freddie

Whilst this is undoubtedly true in Thailand,[ and I can concur that my ex-wife often said that we should not get involved when approaching a road accident] the situation is much worse in India--people are so scared of getting involved with, or in some way associated with, an accident victim that they will look away and scurry past--this is generally not due to the possibility of being sued but the likelihood of being stung for any payments incurred when treating the victim--ambulance bills, hospital/Dr.'s fees etc..at least this was very much the case during the 20 plus years that I spent travelling around and working there.

I even came across a dead body in a small soi by a large hotel and, when entering said hotel to try to call for assistance was asked "why--is it a relative of yours?"--considering the fact that it was the body of a south Indian,[ i.e. black as coal] this seemed somewhat fatuous!

Yeah, I can understand that, I was travelling by road from Tuticorin to Madurai, we passed the scene of a recent accident between a Bus and a Motorcyclist, needless to say the M/C rider was lying dead in the road, although there was a fairly large crowd, no-one seemed to be doing anything other than having a look and then moving on.

regards

Freddie

[Dakhar]

I was told that I could not practice audiology in Thailand because I am not a physician!!!!!!!!!

[samuibeachcomber]

Mogli - that's interesting...

Is it illegal for lay persons to apply sticking plasters as well I wonder?

The plot thickens...

and so might the tea money.

[Hairy]

I am aware that in the US, many people consider that the use of an AED is simply to keep the heart 'alive' until it can be donated.....

But it's the legal issue here in Thailand. As I mentioned, some doctors have told me about this rule, but none seem able to actuallr produce the evidence that such a rule exists.

Simon

My understanding is that in the States, volunteers and lay people are covered in every state by "Good Samaritan" laws - they cannot be sued. Paid health staff, from doctors to emts (not to belittle emts, they're the tops in my book) are able to be sued, which is why they have malpractice insurance; and high malpractice insurance premiums are a goodly portion of the increasingly high rates of health care in the States.

Not exactly. In the U.S., you're required to render COMPETENT aid. If you charge in and screw things up, you can be sued successfully. If you do anything, and the other side wants to try to claim that you rendered aid incompetently, they can always try to prove it in court, and a jury will make the decision.

There's a recent case in California about exactly this. A woman got into a car accident, and some brainless bimbo rushed in and dragged her out of the car. Since the woman's neck was fractured, the bimbo managed to sever her spinal cord while dragging her around. The bimbo just lost in court a few weeks ago.

The press is being sympathetic to the bimbo in the following article, although they really shouldn't be:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...=002&sc=964

Only two states have laws requiring passersby to render aid (MN and VT), and neither has ever used the law against anyone who didn't to see if the law would stand up in court.

Hi Freddie, although it sounds rather callous, I maybe would think twice before using an AED on a Thai victim. Perhaps more realistic than callous...

I think I'll ask their permission first

In the U.S., at least, if the person is conscious and tracking, you're obligated to ask before interfering. Whether it would end up in court or not, if you failed to ask, depends on whether you screw things up. Note above case.

[geriatrickid]

Thailand does not have a Good Samaritan law on the books.

This has resulted in bad press. Here's an example from the Phuket Post last December.

http://phuket-post.com/article/phuket-loca...-to-walk-on-by/

Terrible article.

My rule of thumb is that unless the injured party is a westerner or a Thai that I know, I go in the opposite direction. It's cruel, but I until the people stop considering foreigners as liable, I am not willing to put my well being at risk. Change the law and I'll behave differently.

[ScubaBuddha]

My rule of thumb is that unless the injured party is a westerner or a Thai that I know, I go in the opposite direction. It's cruel, but I until the people stop considering foreigners as liable, I am not willing to put my well being at risk. Change the law and I'll behave differently.

You are exactly right. With an EMT background, it is very difficult to do, but I have to agree with you. I have a similar rule. I will help if it is 1) a farang, 2)a child, whether Thai or farang. The police and the childs family can do what they want to me afterwards, regardless it would be worth it if I can help. I will have to amend my rule to include Thai's I know.